 |
 |
The other confusing thing is it depends on what you mean by "Dublin Core". The phrase has been used to refer to _at least_ two entirely different things: 1) A (very) simple list of data elements, that is a controlled vocabulary for "fields". 2) A much more complex standard way of building out entire metadata 'profiles', which may have nothing to do with that first initial simple list of fields. In either case, it doesn't have much to do with the FRBR Conceptual Model, other than that all of them are attempts to standardize machine-readable metadata in somewhat different contexts. Jonathan Douglas Campbell wrote: > 5) FRBR's strength is defining the relationships between things, Dublin Core's strength is how to describe the things. > > Douglas Campbell > National Library of New Zealand > > > >>>> stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]> 15/04/10 10:11 >>> >>>> > Karen Coyle wrote: > >> Quoting John Moss <[log in to unmask]>: >> >> >>> I trying to wrap my head around the differences between Dublin Core >>> and FRBR. Is one based upon the other? If so, which came first? >>> >> 1) totally unrelated, apples and grommets >> 2) DC started up first; FRBR was issued in 1998, but didn't get much >> attention for the first 10 years of its life. DC was getting >> increasing use during that time. >> > > 3) DC takes a 'start simple' approach whereas FRBR attempts to encompass > every bibliographic need > 4) DC can be readily applied to almost any media/data; FRBR really only > fits human-generated things that have been 'published' in some sense. > > cheers > stuart >