Ok, let's forget #3 and DC. I do not know in how much ambiguity unqualified names may result but I do not expect this to be a big problem.
>>> [log in to unmask] 15-05-02 17:31 >>>
> For #3: 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).
What's the Dublin Core for collectable card rarity? Or the name of the
card set that it's from? 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?
Why is DC to be treated as superior to any other indexset?
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.
I still disagree fundamentally. BIB1 proves that This Does Not Work.
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. 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