-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
dc/dcterms: date #86
Comments
In those cases where the definitions and comments will be identical between the two namespaces, would it be better to make a kind of "see reference" to the dcterms property? The advantage with that it is that makes it absolutely clear that the two are defined identically. With text you don't know if there are any differences. Somehow I want an indication that the properties have the exact same definition. This will indicate to people that they can treat them as "same as" in any work they are doing. |
would it be better to make a kind of "see reference" to the dcterms
property
Thanks - this is indeed the way I am currently handling it! Each
"elements/1.1" property has a note saying that "A second property
<http://localhost:1313/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/#http://purl.org/dc/terms/date>
with
the same name as this property has been declared in the dcterms: namespace
<http://purl.org/dc/terms/>. See the Introduction to the document DCMI
Metadata Terms
<http://localhost:1313/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/> for an
explanation." The current DCMIMT document has notes like this, but these
notes actually link to a specific property.
…On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 8:32 PM Karen Coyle ***@***.***> wrote:
In those cases where the definitions and comments will be identical
between the two namespaces, would it be better to make a kind of "see
reference" to the dcterms property? The advantage with that it is that
makes it absolutely clear that the two are defined identically. With text
you don't know if there are any differences. Somehow I want an indication
that the properties have the exact same definition. This will indicate to
people that they can treat them as "same as" in any work they are doing.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#86?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAIOBJUQINZUH7BUZJXL37LQ55QEBA5CNFSM4KHBQDPKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJBQXRI#issuecomment-574819269>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIOBJXBLAUQMVZ6WRTRPLTQ55QEBANCNFSM4KHBQDPA>
.
|
dc11:date (through 2019)
Comment reads: "Date may be used to express temporal
information at any level of granularity. Recommended
best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as
the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601."
dcterms:date (ISO 15836-2 / DCMIMT 2020)
Comment: Date may be used to express temporal
information at any level of granularity. Recommended
practice is to express the date, date/time, or period
of time according to ISO 8601-1 or a published
profile of the ISO standard, such as the W3C Note on
Date and Time Formats or the Extended Date/Time
Format Specification. If the full date is unknown,
month and year (YYYY-MM) or just year (YYYY) may be
used. Date ranges may be specified using ISO 8601
period of time specification in which start and end
dates are separated by a '/' (slash) character.
Either the start or end date may be missing.
Examples
2018
2016-03-04
2017-11-05T08:15:30-05:00
1968/2015
2006/..
CHANGING NOW (unless I hear objections!)
dcterms:date (DCMIMT 2020)
Changing comment as per dcterms:
PROPOSING FOR FUTURE (to be voted)
dc11:date
Declare equivalent to dcterms:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: