It seems to me that the way XML/RDF has been sold to people is that you
can define your text in any way you want. Please excuse my naivete, but
I thought the way to do this was by using some strange language:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://w3.org/TR/1999/PR-rdf-syntax-19990105#"
xmlns:Myns="http://my schema/">
<rdf:Description about="http://my page">
<Myns:DC.Creator.Princeton Librarian>Jim
Weinheimer</Myns:DC.Creator.Princeton Librarian>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
leading to my own DTD would define "DC.Creator.Princeton Librarian" and
solve the entire problem. (I've considered it to be similar to a style
sheet). I have never understood how this would solve anything, but just
believed it.
So, it doesn't seem to work, which has always been my sneaking suspicion
(apparently, as it has to Bernhard, too).
Does this make the need to create standard qualifiers even more urgent
for the library community? I don't believe that any librarian feels that
unqualified Dublin Core is adequate for our needs.
For the library community, could we set up a quick, standard list of
qualifiers based on MARC? How about: DC.Creator.100? or
DC.Descriptor.502? I know that people seem to want the codes written in
English, but if the creators want to know what the code means, they can
look it up. (I would hope they would anyway!)
Lots of fields could be conflated (after all, people want to conflate
main entry, added entry and publisher!). Maybe a couple of new ones
could be created, but there's been a lot of thought put into the last
30+ years of MARC development.
This could be done quickly and be adequate for most of our needs.
Is this idea too crazy?
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
> To me, the the entire area of "qualifiers" look like a minefield.
> I am (at the moment) very, very afraid of the consquences of
> entering it. If it was up to me, I would have left section 7
> out of the [dchtml] document, and just (for the time being) been
> content with publishing a document that explained how to encode
> DC 1.0 (i.e. DC according to RFC2413) in HTML. But since it is
> not up to me, I hope to instead to win appoval for a less radical
> proposal, which is to put a "Warning, slippery surface" in section
> 7 of [dchtml].
>
> Why are qualifiers so dangerous?
>
> Well, if you look at the current practice in the use of qualifiers
> -- as eminently documented by the good people of Göttingen:
>
> http://www2.sub.uni-goettingen.de/metaform/
>
> it is fairly evident that the mere existence of a syntax to express
> qualification has, at least, led some people to believe that they
> are doing the community a service through coming up with inventive
> stuff like "DC.Creator.PersonalName.DateOfBirth" -- quite oblivious
> to the fact that this makes no sense whatsover outside a small circle
> of consenting adults. In fact, this particular invention will
> just confuse any software programmed to just look for "DC.Creator.*"
> in the (somewhat naďve) belief that using wildcards in this manner
> is a good strategy for tackling the plethora of alternate ways of
> qualifying identity that the availability of a easy to use qualification
> syntax coupled with certain cataloguers fondness for mapping their
> pre-existing internal schemas onto the Dublin Core has spurred.
>
> To me, random and free form qualifiers do not make sense in the context
> of the Internet. They may make a lot of sense within the closed confines
> of an intranet (i.e. within a group who among themselves are able agree
> about what qualifiers to use, and what their meaning are), but as the
> _Internet_ draft reads, the fact that qualifiers are lesser animals
> than the 15 core properties that is named in RFC2413 is not communicated
> to the reader at all.
>
> I understand that I am a minority, and that it is now too late to
> get completely rid of qualifiers. People are just too fond of the
> illusion of expressive power that qualifiers made up at the spur
> of the moment provides.
>
> But grant me at least a warning sticker ...
>
> --
> - gisle hannemyr ( [log in to unmask] - http://home.sol.no/home/gisle/ )
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Use the Source, Luke. Use the Source." -- apologies to Obi-Wan Kenobi
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
