 |
 |
Rachel Heery wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Misha Wolf wrote: > > > Hence, I stay with: > > > > <meta name="DC.contributor.name" content="Chris Smith"> > > <meta name="DC.contributor.role" content="Illustrator"> > > <meta name="DC.contributor.affiliation" content="United Illustrators"> > > > > or: > > > > <contributor> > > <name>Chris Smith</name> > > <role>Illustrator</role> > > <affiliation>United Illustrators</affiliation> > > </contributor> > > > > The other approach proposed just doesn't scale. It was: > > > > <meta name="DC.contributor.illustrator" content="Chris Smith"> > > I can't help but feel that your preferred solutions are just shoving the > problem to the right hand side.... its a syntax solution No, it is not a syntax solution. It changes values such as "illustrator", "choreographer" or "producer" from being *sub-elements* to being *data*. > it doesn't solve > the real problem which is that proliferation of qualifiers works against > interoperability (however they are expressed). I'm uncomfortable with your use of the word "qualifiers". At DC4, we used this word to mean one of: 1. language 2. scheme 3. type (sub-element name) See http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june97/metadata/06weibel.html for the DC4 report. In my proposal, "choreographer" moves from being a qualifier to being a member of a vocabulary, just like "Ming Dynasty" in: <meta name="DC.coverage.periodName" scheme="historic" content="Ming Dynasty"> > I think qualifiers will > only work where they are agreed between user communities, where that > community fixes on an enumerated list which can be communicated to > metadata creators, software provider and searchers. Otherwise the > qualifiers can't be used in the search process Indeed, it is generally helpful if a group of people agree on a vocabulary. We will, of course, have hundreds of vocalularies, adopted by various groups for specialised uses. Some vocabularies will emerge as having more general use. > Oh, and isn't there the issue of how search engines would deal with > grouped, repeatable elements ... but I think that's another thread, > something for DC5 maybe? That's where RDF comes in, I hope! HTML's META element syntax doesn't support grouped, repeatable elements. We'll be given lots of info on RDF at DC5. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth DC Metadata Workshop, 6-8 Oct 1997, linnea.helsinki.fi/meta/DC5.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.