Thanks for forwarding your note to the meta2 list. A few comments, which
are my personal opinions and are not to be taken as Dublin Core gospel.

on section 2.1
   The datamodel working group of the Dublin Core has recommended that
   the URI  http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/   be the one for the XML
   namespace used for the 15 Dublin Core elements.  That decision has
   not been ratified by the community as a whole, but it might be better
   to replace the ftp.isi.edu URL with this one.

on section 2.2
   Sounds good, some examples might be nice.
   There are some cases that might need more explanation, dc:Identifier
for
   example. Assume an XML document describes itself with some embedded
DC.
   It is allowed, but not required, to have a dc:Identifier that holds
the
   URI of the XML document. I'm not sure of WebDAV's handling of
implicit
   identifiers, so you may want to say something on this point.

2.3
   The Dublin Core datamaldel WG has been looking into issues of
repetition of
   property values. That working group is making a schema for basic and
for
   qualified Dublin Core using RDF. We are not using <ol><li>... for
lists
   of values, although there is actually a similar syntax IF the
multiple
   values are specified using an RDF collection (Bag, Seq, Alt).

   The problem, however, is that RDF also allows simple repetition, in
addition
   to the collection constructs. Since simple repetition is the simplest
way
   for dealing with multiple creators in simple syntaxes like HTML
<meta> tags,
   the DC commuity expects to see a lot of them.

   So, the datamodel WG has made the interim decision that any of the
RDF
   mechanisms (simple repetition or the collection constructs) are fair
to use
   in Dublin Core. (That group has also sought feedback from
implementors on
   that decision).

   So, while the Dublin Core assumes some capabilities that are more
general
   than WebDAV, there may be a workaround. That could be a point for
discussion
   between the communities.

   However, it is worth noting that the RDF model and syntax WG looked
at the
   question of eliminating simple repetition in favor of requiring
collection
   constructs and decided not to for several reasons.


2.4 Subelements
   The DC commuity has not completed its work on specifying qualifiers.
It has
   reserved another URI for an XML namespace that will hold the
qualifiers it
   does decide to define. So, I would say that it is reasonable
   to deal only with the core 15 elements at this time.

   We can talk about what is going on, in case the WebDAV group wants to
try
   and future-proof WebDAV against what may be coming there. (Generally,
the
   datamodel WG is looking at expressing things in the RDF data model,
getting
   one syntax (XML according to RDF conventions) for free, then looking
at what
   it takes to express the same capabilities in other syntaxes. But,
those other
   syntaxes may be a long time in coming.) 

Just my personal opinions,
Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John Stracke [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 06, 1998 3:27 PM
> To:	WebDAV WG; Meta2 Mailing List
> Subject:	Update to draft-ietf-webdav-dublin-core
> 
> Attached is an update to my Draft on using Dublin Core in
> WebDAV, which addresses the question of subelements
> (currently under debate in the Meta2 group).
> 
> --
> /====================================================================\
> |John (Francis) Stracke    |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported |
> |Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================|
> |Netscape Comm. Corp.      | So what's the gene for belief in        |
> [log in to unmask]      |  genetic determinism?                   |
> \====================================================================/
> 
>  << File: draft-ietf-webdav-dublin-core-01.txt >>