[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sally's discussion document
- To: smorris@wiley.co.uk
- Subject: Re: Sally's discussion document
- From: cmorgan@wiley.co.uk
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:42:05 +0100
- CC: edward@plato32.demon.co.uk, chris.zielinski@alcs.co.uk, charles@bic.org.uk, cclark@cla.co.uk, brian@bic.org.uk, lynette.owen@awl.co.uk, jerickson@ybp.com, n.paskin@elsevier.co.uk, skpassoc@internetmci.com, jpeterson@eiq.com, mark@markbide.co.uk, kfrey@ybp.com, Dafydd.Wynphillips@alcs.co.uk, robertom@pira.co.uk, ihinds@copyright.com, godfreyrust@dds.netkonect.co.uk, Niso-doi@vms2.macc.wisc.edu
- Expansion-Of: niso-doi@wigate.nic.wisc.edu
- Sender: pope@macc.wisc.edu
Please note correction in point (3).
Cliff
These functional subdivisions don't (unless I've misunderstood) exactly
match the Dublin Core element sets of Content, Intellectual Property and
Instantiation.
Cliff Morgan suggests that the three groups outlined above would contain
the
following DC elements:
Bibliographic: Title, Subject, Description, Source, Language, Relation,
Coverage
>The Dublin Core Simple elements that belong in Bibliographic also include
Creator,
>Publisher, Contributor, Date, and Identifier.
Descriptive (technical): Type, Format
>On reflection, I would suggest that Type belongs in Bibliographic too.
Therefore, the only
>rendering-relevant DC tag is Format. Everything else is Bibliographic or
Rights.
>Cliff Morgan
>John Wiley & Sons Ltd
>Chichester, UK