- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:23:07 +0100
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> Michael Kifer wrote:
>> It would be
>> useful, although I am afraid we will not be done any time soon with this
>> given the amount of heat that even seemingly simple issues tend to
>> generate.
>
> Maybe, or maybe not :-)
>
> Maybe we could just have a quick poll on which meta-data everyone would
> like to have standardized, and maybe we would see that there is a
> obvious subset of the answers on which nobody objects?
We have discussed this before, a few times (though I lack the time or
will to track down the emails). To me the minimal core set is actually
very simple: name, comment, author(s) and date (of authorship).
Previously I suggested using the rdfs vocabulary plus bits of Dublin
Corre for these but there was preference for use of Dublin Core. So my
suggestion would be:
dc:title - rule name
dc:description - longer descriptive comments
dc:creator - author
dc:date - authorship date
Personally I want to also have rdfs:seeAlso as a route to referring to
arbitrary other metadata documents on the web but that's not critical.
Dave
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 17:25:21 UTC