[tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues
D ö ring, Markus
m.doering at BGBM.org
Wed Jul 4 09:48:31 CEST 2007
I cant see why we shouldnt mandate one specific standard. One variable less.
I would vote for option #1
Am 03.07.2007 3:55 Uhr schrieb "Renato De Giovanni" unter
<renato at cria.org.br>:
> Hi all,
> I see the following alternatives to the language issue:
> 1) Indicate through the specification one particular standard to be used
> by dc:language.
> 2) Include dc:language elements inside a new element with an attribute
> indicating the standard being used, such as:
> <contentLanguages standard="ethnologue">
> Where "standard" could be an extensible controlled vocabulary.
> 3) Extend the dc:language type so that it accepts a similar "standard"
> Are there other alternatives we should consider?
> I think the requirements are that:
> * Language can be optional.
> * There can be multiple languages.
> * We must somehow know what is the standard used for the language.
> I don't think it would be necessary to allow multiple language elements
> where each one could be potentially related to different standards.
> I don't have strong feelings about this, although I would be more inclined
> to choose option 2. Option 1 would bring less impact to existing
> implementations and installations, but we would need to be sure that the
> standard we choose would really cover all needs.
> What do you think?
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag