[pmwiki-users] Re: yet another documentation suggestion ...
mistyfire at autograf.pl
Wed Aug 3 23:43:45 CDT 2005
On Thursday 04 August 2005 09:15, John Rankin wrote:
> On Thursday, 4 August 2005 3:16 PM, V.Krishn <mistyfire at autograf.pl> wrote:
> >> As I understand it, Dublin Core defines /structure/ not content.
> >> I think we could map (:keywords:) to dc:subject -- again pmwiki
> >mmmm.... this would be not quite fair as the scope of these are
> Yeah, !categories seem more appropriate to me for dc:subject
<dc:subject> -- ignore, or spaced-out version of the title ("SomeWikiPage" ->
"Some Wiki Page")
<dc:title> -- the name of the wiki page, without the Wiki name or other stuff
I think here it means :
<dc:title> eg. Main.HomePage
<dc:subject> Either the spaced out version OR text from (:title:)
I think dc:description means (:description:)
coz if there exist a meta for a bookmark this would sound weird-
<dc:description> -- ignore, or use the first paragraph of the wiki page.
The description of or notes about the bookmark.
> >I also see no harm in author making change to the meta content, remember
> > its "wiki" and authors best know how to describe the page if he/she has
> > full freedom to change content.
> Except that pmwiki already looks after some dc elements, like the date
> and the page's URI. I don't think we want writers to change these.
> Those dc elements that pmwiki looks after, the author shouldn't be
> able to change. Those that pmwiki doesn't look after, the author
> as you say knows best. Basically, we have to consider each dc
> element on its own merits and decide whether it's author managed or
> pmwiki managed.
> And the metadata don't need to be physically separate. Pmwiki
> already holds various attributes as part of the page; the dc-mes
> would just add to these and be generated as dc xml on demand, in the
> same way that pmwiki generates html of the contents on demand.
> >What would be status of these documents:
> >This does not define <link rel="meta" ...> ??
> As I understand it, DC is a particular metadata model, whereas the
> MCF is a /framework/ for implementing metadata models. But I am
> rapidly getting out of my depth.
> I'd turn the question on its head: why /would't/ we use DC as a
Nope, I am not againt it. What I am trying to emphasise is that while
designing it we keep in mind other rdf models too
i.e other rdf models, dc, annotea, bookmarks.... hmmmm
And the design should be flexible rather modular enough to adapt itself.
> basis for wiki page metadata? I haven't been able to think of
> a good reason. AFAIK, it's the most widely-used standard and
> still leaves the door open for other metadata models to be used
> if these are more appropriate in any given situation. Best of all,
> there is great documentation about how to encode dc, so it makes
> correct implementation very straightforward.
> See http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmes-xml/
> Linking to Dublin Core metadata in XML from HTML
> Dublin Core encoded in the method described here can be referred to from an
> HTML document and associated with it by means of the HTML <link> element.
> The recommended relation type for this purpose is rel="meta", used like
> this: <link rel="meta" href="mydoc.dcxml" />
> where mydoc.dcxml is the URI of the XML document being refered to.
I think its not far dedicated meta servers would be ubiquitous.
Shall we christen it DMS or MFS (meta file servers) from where meta files can
be picked up or shared. :-)
More information about the pmwiki-users