- From: Mikael Nilsson <mikael@nilsson.name>
- Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 21:01:52 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>, "'Antoine Isaac'" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
fre 2010-12-03 klockan 11:45 -0500 skrev Thomas Baker: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:50:31PM -0500, Barbara Tillett wrote: > > I rather like "metadata element set" for those classes and property labels - > > avoids confusion with the actual values to be assigned to specific instnaces > > of a class or property. - Barbara > > I can live with "metadata element set". Can others who favored > "element vocabulary" think of reasons this would not work? Though I favor the term I used myself when writing about this, I don't see anything seriously wrong with "metadata element set". To me it carries the same interpretation as "element vocabulary". The important thing here is to distinguish functionally, by typical usage rather than internal structure. That is - the distinction is not mainly used to categorize vocabularies but rather to analyze how vocabularies are used and combined in metadata application profiles. For example, DCMI Type can be used as both a value vocabulary (as values of dc:type) or as element vocabularies (as domain of a property, for example). In a given setting (app profile), only one usage is typically relevant. /Mikael
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 20:02:36 UTC