RE: BIB2/XD/DC's 'title'

> > Then would you agree with A) and ignore that Relation should be a
> > controlled vocabulary, or do you have another suggestion? The DC Citation
> > group currently recommend Identifier, though this is less of a solution in
> > this case as the full reference for the article (etc) is not given.

> - having XD be the same as DC but just changing the semantics 'of the
>   resource' to 'about the resource' gives us two cross-domain sets that
>   do not interoperate - if you use the same words but give them
>   different meanings, you are speaking a different language - even worse,
>   you seem to be using the same language but you are not, which I think
>   is utterly confusing.

Already XD has stepped away from DC in that it has one combined field for
'Name' rather than Creator and so forth.  We all, I think, recognise the
value of Dublin Core, but in this case one size does not appear to fit
all.  By clearly stating that related items can be included under the
appropriate heading we simply move all of the entries that would otherwise
have to go into Relation without a controlled vocabulary into semantic
qualifiers of the appropriate type.

For example:  relation/journal title
              relation/journal editor
              relation/journal date
              relation/journal enumeration
              relation/journal publisher
              relation/journal language

Simply become title/journal
              name/journal editor

(and hence inherit all of the name definitions such as 'normalised form
of name' and so forth, which otherwise also need to be applied to relation
in case of a name in them)

Ditto for date - all of the normalisation and structures need to be
applicable to relations that are semantically qualified to be dates...

and so on for any type of relation that you can think of.

> - to me it is counter-intuitive that an article in a journal would
>   have the journal title, or even the title of a related journal, as
>   the title of the article; just feels completely wrong to me.

Under the current definition of Cross Domain, I agree. Even under my
revision it is still a little strange but this is only because currently
that is how it is defined in BIB2 and I wanted to find a way to generalise
this issue to resolve several 'problems' at once.

Even if it is a misunderstanding of BIB2 on my part, I feel that a
decision needs to be made so that future attribute sets can follow it if
needed.

Do you have a suggestion as to how to resolve this within DC, if so please
speak up :)

Rob
-- 
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson (azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk)
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Syrinnia:  telnet:  syrinnia.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW:  http://syrinnia.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 15:06:10 UTC