The other confusing thing is it depends on what you mean by "Dublin
Core". The phrase has been used to refer to _at least_ two entirely
different things:
1) A (very) simple list of data elements, that is a controlled
vocabulary for "fields".
2) A much more complex standard way of building out entire metadata
'profiles', which may have nothing to do with that first initial simple
list of fields.
In either case, it doesn't have much to do with the FRBR Conceptual
Model, other than that all of them are attempts to standardize
machine-readable metadata in somewhat different contexts.
Jonathan
Douglas Campbell wrote:
5) FRBR's strength is defining the relationships between things, Dublin Core's
strength is how to describe the things.
Douglas Campbell
National Library of New Zealand
stuart yeates <[email protected]> 15/04/10 10:11 >>>
Karen Coyle wrote:
Quoting John Moss <[email protected]>:
I trying to wrap my head around the differences between Dublin Core
and FRBR. Is one based upon the other? If so, which came first?
1) totally unrelated, apples and grommets
2) DC started up first; FRBR was issued in 1998, but didn't get much
attention for the first 10 years of its life. DC was getting
increasing use during that time.
3) DC takes a 'start simple' approach whereas FRBR attempts to encompass
every bibliographic need
4) DC can be readily applied to almost any media/data; FRBR really only
fits human-generated things that have been 'published' in some sense.
cheers
stuart
