Keeping in step with URCs
Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk> Wed, 24 January 1996 21:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26781; 24 Jan 96 16:40 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26777; 24 Jan 96 16:40 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20484; 24 Jan 96 16:40 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id OAA17048 for iafa-out; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:41:58 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA16915; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 14:41:48 -0500
Received: from bgate.lut.ac.uk by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA18380 (mail destined for whoispp-schema@services.bunyip.com); Wed, 24 Jan 96 14:41:38 -0500
Received: (jon@localhost) by weeble.lut.ac.uk (8.7.3/8.6.9) id TAA13445; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:40:37 GMT
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:40:37 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
To: urc@spam.gatech.edu, iafa@bunyip.com, whoispp-schema@bunyip.com
Subject: Keeping in step with URCs
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960124191046.7803Y-100000@weeble.lut.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Orig-Sender: owner-iafa@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Hi all, I'm one of the programmers working on the ROADS Project, a UK funded development project providing software to support subject based services (see <URL:http://ukoln.bath.ac.uk/roads/> for more details). We've been using extended versions of the IAFA template to date for providing resource descriptions and they're working reasonably well for us at the moment. However, what our users (the subject services) are really doing is generating metadata - the sort of metadata that you might expect to find inside the URCs of the future. As such we'd like to ensure that we keep in step with the current thinking on URCs, and also feedback some of our experiences with the current ROADS templates and tools into the URC development process. Looking at the IAFA templates we've got so far and comparing them to other metadata formats, one is struck by the fact that they are relatively simple to create, which we feel is a Good Thing(tm). We picked on IAFA templates when we were proposing the project well over a year ago as it looked like a promising candidate for the URC format. Now that we have several months experience with production services using our software and lots of filled in templates, we thought it would be interesting to look at which template types and attributes are most commonly used in our environment. It would be great to compare notes with other groups that look after large collections of Internet resource descriptions, in whatever format they're currently using. Ideally this would give us an idea as to whether its feasible to devise a minimal "lowest common denominator" URC format. We'd like to have some hard figures before we suggest anything formally to the group. It would also be interesting to compare these results to the Dublin Core elements. Anyway, we'd welcome any feedback from members for the list. Tatty bye, Jim'll -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU. * I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
- Re: Keeping in step with URCs Renato Iannella
- Keeping in step with URCs Jon Knight