RE: [syndication] Digest Number 147

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

This time I answer after the Original Message:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 22:52
> 
> "Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> writes:
> 
> > I personaly know a lot of people that are familiar with RSS and do
> > not have a clue on the Dublin Core.
> 
> > I am sorry, but it looks like you have a wrong perception on what is
> > the background of the rest of the world. I only hope this note helps
> > fixing that.
> 
> The main point: as long as anybody in the group knows about it and
> brings it up, then everyone knows about it.
> 
> In this particular case, the reason why this isn't an issue with users
> is because the proposal is not to make a normative reference to Dublin
> Core ("go read Dublin Core if you want to understand this") but to
> take the definitions of some elements from Dublin Core and use them
> verbatim ("footnote: these have the same definitions as in Dublin
> Core, in case you find that useful").
> 
> Does this make a difference?
> 
>   -- Ken


Ken,


First, lets put back the context. This was the posting I was 
answering:

> > 1. Dublin Core is a slippery slope because most RSS developers 
> don't have a
> > clue what it is and I don't think they have to.
> 
> Dublin Core is a widely known and widely used protocol, 
> especially in academic,
> library and information management circles. It would be 
> astonishing were it true
> if RSS developers "didn't have a clue" about it.


So, I was trying to correct a wrong perception. I was not taking a
side in the previous discussion.

Fixing this kind of perception seems important to me since the 
Dublin Core is mentioned too often without placing together a link 
to a site explaining what it means.

So, this is the difference it makes.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar