- From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 14:11:18 -0800 (PST)
- To: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
- cc: meta2 <meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>, www-html <www-html@w3.org>, HTTP WG <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Misha Wolf wrote:
> A note for readers not familiar with the Dublin Core, taken from
> draft-kunze-dc-00.txt:
>
> The ... motivation ... [is to] ... improve the prospects for resource
> discovery on the Web. Specifically, the goal [is] to identify a simple
> set of common description elements that authors (or content managers)
> could embed in their documents to promote their discovery ... The term
> "Dublin Core" applies to this simple core of descriptive elements.
While "Dublin" may have meaning to those people who were there, it is quite
meaningless for the rest of humanity. If you want to keep the acronymn, how
about "Descriptive Core"? At least that has some semantic meaning.
> The fifteen Dublin Core Metadata elements are: TITLE, CREATOR, SUBJECT,
> DESCRIPTION, PUBLISHER, CONTRIBUTOR, DATE, TYPE, FORMAT, IDENTIFIER, SOURCE,
> LANGUAGE, RELATION, COVERAGE and RIGHTS.
Gee, just "date"? Creation date (or first publication date) should be
specifiable separately from modification date. Oh and there's expiration date
too, where applicable. I think those should be provided for; otherwise, authors
will just keep following their own style and ignore DC conventions.
__________________________________________________________________________
Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
Mountain View, CA ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
http://www.natural-innovations.com/ Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter
Received on Saturday, 8 March 1997 17:14:00 UTC