On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Nils<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 18, 7:18 am, Nicolas Alvarez <[email protected]> wrote: >> Nicolas Alvarez wrote: >> > About 3 and 4: as I said in another post, I think it would be a good idea >> > to *get rid of all metadata tags in the metalink namespace*, and reuse an >> > existing metadata format like Dublin Core instead. >> >> >http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/ >> >> Any comments on this? > > Since the format changed significantly from ml3 I think it would be a > good time to think about this. > I like Dublin Core, too, and I'm generally for using it, however there > are a few things to consider: > * There are a few DC related rfc. However they seem to be > "Informational". I don't know how this would affect metalink > standardization. > * Should there be a lot of DC elements that generators should use (as > opposed to other elements). How would we map the current set of > elements to DC elements? > * Can all of the current elements be easily mapped? Which elements > must stay?
maybe metalink in RDF would be a good place to start, I know it uses some DC http://www.metalinker.org/metalink2rdfxml.xsl -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
