> I think Theo's point is that we're talking about access points that
> don't belong to any community -- or, if you prefer, the "no community"
> community. I agree with him that we should provide a lax way for
> talking about things things (and add that there can be no strict way,
> for fundamental reasons.)
Then why expand it to Qualified Dublin Core which self evidently does have
a community?
I'd be okay with the base /15/ elements, but as soon as you introduce
more than that you're moving away out of no community into someone's
opinion about a community. (See also DC-LIB vs BIB2)
> > For unprefixed names let's use as much as possible the element and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > qualifier names from the available DCMI application profiles without
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > the namespace prefix (ambiguity is the clients risc).
> I think this is a neat compromise. To state it more clearly (if I
> may): when a server receives a search against an unqualified index
> _for which is has no semantics of its own_, it is gently encouraged to
> treat it as semantically similar to the same-named Dublic Core
> element.
No, that's not what Theo said.
> > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Here's my list of names.
> > <#include "bib1.h"> (many hundred)
> Way, way too many. We couldn't possibly require -- or even encourage
> -- servers to standardise semantics of that many access points. I was
> think more in terms of, ooh, let's say, about fifteen.
Exactly. Yet there are many thousands of domain specific qualifiers in
Qualified DC.
> > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > What's the Dublin Core for collectable card rarity?
> There isn't one.
> > Or the name of the card set that it's from?
> There isn't one.
Correct.
> > How about the DC for username? port number? Music tempo? How do
> > you specify the name of the journal that an article is to be found
> > in?
> (I'm going to leave you to figure out the answers to these :-)
The answer is the same as the above ;) And yes, even for Name of Journal
of Article. (At least according to people I've talked to who are/were
involved in defining DC)
> > If I have a default indexset in a collectable card database, then
> > searching for unprefixed 'set' should not have to be interpreted as
> > searching for a mathematical set or anything else.
> No indeed -- servers would say: "Sorry, mate, got no idea what you're
> talking about."
If there's a default indexset that defines a 'set' index, then it should
use that. If there isn't a default indexset, then it should say "Eh?", I
agree.
Rob
--
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
|