- From: Lars G. Svensson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:27:51 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@kcoyle scripsit: > @larsgsvensson I agree that is an issue, but at the same time this is the current practice in the record-based environment. Given the general resistance to change, I suspect that this will be the practice for a while. That's why I think having both a "record-level" and a field-level capability is a good idea, and if we can have both with a single property that would be best. +1, a single property would be easier, although I don’t quite know how that would work… > I see this as a link to or at least an identifier for the rule set. Not all such guidance rules are online. Indeed they are not. If they are published as books we could use urn:isbn. > The other thing, though, is if we consider this different from indicating generally the standard applied to a data value. If not, then the guidance rules can be included as a type of standard. I don't know if there would be cases where one would need BOTH guidance rules and a link to a formal standard. I can't think of any off-hand, but would we assume that the cardinality of standards applied to a value be non-repeatable? (0,1)? The only thing I can think of would be dates (“the value is the publication date and if that isn’t known use the manufacturing date” vs. “use an ISO format for the date”). I think the same _could_ apply to values such as floating point numbers etc. That’s why I keep saying that the cataloguing rules and the exchange formats should be kept separate…). This is sort-of-similar to the use of valueVocabulary and encodingScheme in DublinCore. -- GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/255#issuecomment-399364659 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 22 June 2018 08:27:54 UTC