Eric, You're right. We discussed the directionality problem in Crete and it
got lost in my e-mail due to haste. Can you issue your proposed rewrite as a
full definition and then we can consider it.
Carl
----------------------------------------
Carl Lagoze, Digital Library Scientist
Computer Science Department
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
Internet: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
WWW: htttp://www2.cs.cornell.edu/lagoze/lagoze.html
Phone: +1-607-255-6046
FAX: +1-607-255-4428
-----Original Message-----
From: Jul,Erik [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 1998 7:31 PM
To: 'Carl Lagoze'; Meta2 Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Recommendation from DC Data Model Group
for Change to Relatio n El ement Definition
Carle writes:
> For consistency with other elements, the Dublin Core Data
Model Group (as
> a
> result of its meeting in Crete on September 24-25)
recommends the
> following
> change to the definition:
>
> "An identifier of a second resource or a free text string
representing the
> second resource (e.g., a line of poetry), and the
relationship of the
> second
> resource to the present resource.
[Jul,Erik]
That is regrettable. I had reported earlier to this
list my
observation that readers of the RFC had difficulty
interpreting the
definition, which seems to orient the nature of the
relationship from the
point of view of the second resource.
Read the definition, above, again.
"... the relationship of the second resource to the
present
resource."
Of course, what is wanted is the relationship of the
*present*
resource to the second resource. Since this is the case,
why can't we write
an English sentence that says just that?
"A pointer to a second resource...and the
relationship of the
present resource to the second resource."
I recommend this, a second time, to the group.
--Erik
Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]
|