[tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues

Jim Graham jim at nrel.colostate.edu
Tue Jul 3 16:04:33 CEST 2007

I would prefer 1 but if it will be hard for a single standard to meet
everyone's needs then I'd support 2.  Any of the options would be preferred
to the existing situation.


-----Original Message-----
From: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
[mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of Renato De Giovanni
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 7:55 PM
To: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Subject: Re: [tdwg-tapir] tapir metadata issues

Hi all,

I see the following alternatives to the language issue:

1) Indicate through the specification one particular standard to be used by


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 mailing list