Am 12 Aug 2004 16:12 meinte Lyle Bickley:
> I've been following this discussion - and figured that "someone" else in the
> world surely must had been working on this issue. I contacted the Computer
> History Museum - and they pointed me to the "Dublin Core Metadata
> Initiative" (DCMI). This is an international organization that has been
> working for years in the specific area of preserving bits. BTW, they have
> an open source license (DCMI Open Source) on all their material.
> See: http://dublincore.org/about/
> Also: http://dublincore.org/tools/
> My suggestion would be to review carefully what's already been
> accomplished - and if you think that they are messing up, work with them to
> accomplish their objectives.
Jup, the DC part is quite comprehensive and the de facto standard
when it comes to meta data about various collections. Still, their
concern is meta information, and not the data itself. Also DC is a
quite complex definition by now.
In my opinion DC is not realy usable for our purpose as a way to
store classic media, but beside that, DC is not only intended as
a stand allone solution, but also from the beginning designed as
an add on to be included in other formats.
Up to now I couldn't find any real necersary information to be
included beside an identifyer for the computer and operateing
system here the media is origninated. I still see no other
essential one needed for some general sections.
And exactly here fits DC - If we use the DC syntag within a
META tag for any kind of additional descriptive information,
we can use all the advantages of DC (and the work done there)
within our definiton. So le't encode everything from date and
version info, names and authors be included via DC.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
Received on Fri Aug 13 2004 - 10:52:37 BST