My frustration with these is that there is an implicit differentiation between content and metadata. The world of DC is really about decorating "content-like resources" with a set of metadata. What is the "format" of a literal? What is the format of a sub-tree of a decomposed document (i.e. a Word doc decomposed into a graph)? When I see an arc, I think "type," made unambiguous by specification somewhere at the other end of a resolvable qName. That could be what we call "format" (including functional interpretation) or simply "author" as a literal. Maybe my mistake is demanding that our terminology be generally applicable. > Element Name: Type > Label: Resource Type > Definition: The nature or genre of the content of the resource. > Comment: Type includes terms describing general categories, functions, > genres, or aggregation levels for content. Recommended best practice is > to select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the DCMI > Type Vocabulary [DCT1]). To describe the physical or digital > manifestation of the resource, use the FORMAT element. > > Element Name: Format > Label: Format > Definition: The physical or digital manifestation of the resource. > Comment: Typically, Format may include the media-type or dimensions of > the resource. Format may be used to identify the software, hardware, or > other equipment needed to display or operate the resource. Examples of > dimensions include size and duration. Recommended best practice is to > select a value from a controlled vocabulary (for example, the list of > Internet Media Types [MIME] defining computer media formats). > > -- > eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ > semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ > w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/ > >Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 13:53:11 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:35:21 EDT