Danny,
Are you suggesting that we revert to Dublin Core?
Randy Charles Morin
Joe Gregorio wrote:
>
> Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> Linked from http://bitworking.org/news/Not_Invented_Here are two
>> versions of an Atom feed, one using an all-Atom vocabulary, one using
>> as many elements as possible borrowed or imported from other
>> vocabularies. I just spent a couple of minutes looking at them and
>> so far haven't made up my mind what I think. Good work, Joe. -Tim
>
>
> Thanks Tim.
> Any feedback on vocabularies I missed or
> abuses of Dublin Core are appreciated.
Ian Davis pointed out the equivalences a little while ago, Norm had
reservations and Randy pointed out some differences in content types,
though DC is very flexible on that. See:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEquivalents
Personally I don't see much to call
between using elements in the DC
namespace directly or reusing the definitions where possible for
elements in the Atom namespace.
If "not invented here" is taken to it's conclusion, I'd respectfully
ask why we're creating a format for describing resources when there is
already an established language with a bunch of W3C Recommendations for
the purpose. I do think the API is sufficiently novel to be worth
exploring in its own right, whatever.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
Raw
http://dannyayers.com