On Monday 08 September 2008 09:55:49 Professor James Davenport wrote: > This raises the question: do we want to structure the 'description' field > more: e.g. <Description> and <FinePrint>, which might then be: > <Description> > The sine function of trigonometry > </Description> > <FinePrint> > As described in Abramowitz and Stegun, section 4.3, and ISO/IEC 10967. > </FinePrint>
The use case sounds reasonable. But, in the spirit of the semantic web, may I propose reusing existing vocabularies for that? If we do introduce a generic metadata mechanism (https://trac.mathweb.org/OM3/ticket/39), rdfs:seeAlso sounds like a good candidate for this field (see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_seealso). And we could still specify FinePrint as syntactic sugar. -- Well, it's not _exactly_ the same, but my point is just to stay open minded to incorporating existing metadata vocabulary. I might find something even more appropriate. Maybe in DC? But dublincore.org seems to be down right now. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, DERI Galway/Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
