On 8/16/06, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, I don't think DC provides a particularly good set of names, far too theoretically designed, and eclipsed in practical usage by several of the other established formats (OpenURL, Bibtex).
Come on Tantek; that's an entirely arbitrary assessment, without any real factual basis. Given the wide-spread use across a whole slew of formats (HTML, RSS, OpenDocument, the new MS XML formats, Adobe's XMP) how can you possibly say that it's "theoretical"? More stuff is described using DC than probably any format or term set in existance. But rather than argue about this, let's step back and pull out what we can likely agree on. The first group is so obvious I really don't think we could possible disagree: * dc:title (absolutely need a "title" term, for all kinds of things) * dc:date (and the qualfiers issued, etc.) * dc:subject (aka tag, keyword, etc.) * dc:publisher * dc:identifier And then there's the following, which have one issue or another where reasonable people can disagree: * dc:creator (OK, maybe a little problematic in different ways, but widely understood and useful, if too broad for most citation needs) * dcterms:isPartOf and isVersionOf. OK, yes, a little bit abstract, but they are excellent ways to describe critical relations in bibliographic data, in ways that don't resume upfront a limited scope of description. Document isPartOf collection, track isPartOf album, article isPartOf journal, etc. Am happy if someone comes up with better terms, so long as they still retain some flexibililty. Most of the rest isn't that important for citation data, but could be for other things (different media, say). Bruce _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
