> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:39:27 -0500
> From: Eliot Christian <[log in to unmask]>
> Leaving aside for now the question of possibly unnecessary
> redundancy, may I ask if anyone sees any other problems with the
> GILS context set: http://www.gils.net/profileV3.html#context
Well, there are two different redundancy issues, aren't there?
One is that, for a few indexes, you have provided two different names
that are, by definition, identical in meaning. For example,
productLanguage and languageOfResource are different names for the
same index. (In fact, that seems to be the only remaining example of
this. If you could bring yourself to chuck out one or other of those
names, then this whole issue would disappear in a puff of smoke).
The second, and more problematic, redundancy issue, is where you've
introduced a new index which is semantically very close to, or in some
cases seemingly indistinguishable from, an existing one. The obvious
example is gils.title which seems identical -- or at least very, very
close -- to dc.title.
But, hey, you didn't want to talk about that! It remains a key issue,
but we'll do it in a separate thread as you requested.
So -- issues other than that. Some of the new indexes you introduce
are arguably applicable to a broader context than GILS: for example,
"audience" is a useful cross-domain index that should perhaps have
been included in DC. Maybe we should have a CQL context set that
contains such indexes?
Beyond that, I don't think I can usefully comment on the set, as I
lack the domain-specific knowledge.
Hope this is less than entirely unhelpful.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "So we don't have to do anything except just stop him entering
the room?" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio