Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 21:38:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Misha Wolf <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Profile In-Reply-To: <199707260920.FAA12588@www10.w3.org> To: www-html <email@example.com> Message-Id: <0835382126071997/A70138/REDMS1/11B7D5661E00*@MHS> The unqualified use of the word "properties" is causing confusion (see below). There are two, quite distinct, kinds of properties involved here. Consider: <meta name="DC.contributor" content="Misha Wolf"> We can discuss (at least) two different properties of "DC.contributor": 1. Its *value*, in this case "Misha Wolf". 2. Its *meaning*, in this case the following definition taken from the Internet Draft draft-kunze-dc-00.txt, titled "Dublin Core Metadata for Simple Resource Description": CONTRIBUTOR Person(s) or organization(s) in addition to those specified in the CREATOR element who have made significant intellectual contributions to the resource but whose contribution is secondary to the individuals or entities specifed in the CREATOR element (for example, editors, transcribers, illustrators, and convenors). The profile is supposed to be a resource (format not specified) defining the meaning of the meta element (and, possibly, also rules for validating and interpreting element values). Misha > > From: Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > The external profile could provide default values, which are overriden > > by the META tags in the document. Somewhat along the lines of > > "Author is X, unless stated otherwise." > > There is nothing in the specification suggesting overriding any values. It says > the external profile "might define properties". The values for these properties > are then set via META. I read it as -- there are no values in the profile. > > The properties (like author or keywords) defined in the profile are later > repeated in META. So I ask myself -- why bother with profile at all. It seems > to be pointless to repeat the same information twice. > > Is there somewhere an example of a profile file one could take a look at? > > /e ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.