Hello, I agree with Dom, as well.
One shouldn't blindly follow guidelines without first applying some common sense. I think this is precisely the case. hugs, rms On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:34, Dom Lachowicz wrote: > On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 03:21, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote: > > Dom Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > >> No, it's actually not. 'Subject' == 'Keywords'! > > >> <URL: http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/ >: > > > > > > Actually, I was addressing the fact that I really *disliked* > > > their globbing of Subject+Keywords into the same tag. > > > > Well, it's only an (arguably) poor choice of name. Scientific > > papers and books include a list of 'subjects' covered, and Web > > pages include a list of 'keywords' or 'key phrases', but they're > > basically the same thing. > > These guys need to get a good grip on semantics and the proper usage of > several English words. They're using words that are related, but not > synonyms as though they were synonyms. > > Subject != Keywords. Even "Subjects Covered or Topics" != Keywords. > Maybe they are similar but it's still not (nearly) correct. "Subject" is > much closer to "Description" semantically, but Descriptions are much > longer than Subjects in practice (where description = a 1+ sentence > summary). So what they're saying is: > > Subject = Description != Subject > > which just doesn't make sense to me.... > > Subject = Topic > Description = 1+ sentences about Subject (summary) > Keywords = Indexable words related to subject, description, author -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
