On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Felix Röthenbacher wrote:
Michael Wechner wrote:
[ ... ]
the dc:format looks good
what do you mean dc:format looks good? To be honest I don't think DC
was designed for machine reading initially (whereas I might be wrong)
and this way all kind of things can go wrong ...
Why?
I tried to do according to the spec:
http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/katmandu/html/dcformat.html
dc:format is the official place to put dimension according to the spec.
Often, dimension information is related to the format of the document,
i.e. height and width are of no use for a OpenDocument, whereas for
image/png it's meaningful. So it's not far off to define the dimension
(or any other information valuable for processing) dependent on and
together with the format (mime-type).
I think it's better to save it in a separate tag as suggested above with
a non-dc namespace. Also see
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/resources/dc/dc-format-wg/review2413.html
I agree that it is not user-friendly because it needs some extra
parsing, but this way we stay with the boasted standards.
The question is, how important is it in that case to stay with the
standards compared to the extra parsing. I am not sure about that ....
but according to
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/dcmi/dc-xml-guidelines/
it is common to mix dc metadata with other metadata schemas and we could
go on with something like
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
<img:height>...</img:height
<img:width>...</img:width>
and save the extra parsing.
WDYT?
Jann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
