On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Misha Wolf wrote:
> I have had a play with Reggie and it is very impressive.
Thanks ;-)
> One issue concerns me, though. Reggie makes no distinction between aspects
> of DC which have been agreed by the DC community (ie unqualified DC) and
> aspects about which there is currently no agreement within the DC community
> (ie qualified DC). This is likely to lead to a lot of controversy and
> confusion.
I don't think it is likely to lead to controversy and confusion.
We already have controversy and confusion!
The problem is that we, as a community, need to sign-off on what
qualified DC is and what it supports.
The working groups:
http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core/wouk_groups.html
need to present/summarise their findings to Meta2 and then
we can write the qualified DC RFC.
Most DC creation tools, like Reggie, have taken liberties as to
what qualified DC is.
> When converting qualified DC to RDF, Reggie generates RDF which differs
> greatly from the approach taken by the DC Data Model WG. I fear that this
> may substantially hinder the adoption of both DC and RDF.
We are fixing that now (I assume you mean the RDF:Description tag
we left off?)
Cheers... Renato
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dr Renato Iannella http://www.dstc.edu.au/renato/
DSTC Pty Ltd phone://61.7/3365.4310
Uni Qld, 4072, AUSTRALIA fax://61.7/3365.4311
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7th International WWW Conference 14-18 Apr'98 http://www7.conf.au
|