Comment for dct:title

[tombaker]

See note_title.md

Add a comment for http://purl.org/dc/terms/title:

Typically, a Title will be a name by which the resource is formally known.

If in doubt about what constitutes the title, repeat the Title element and
include the variants in second and subsequent Title iterations.

Note:

• These would appear in ISO 15836-2 as "NOTE 1 to entry:" and "NOTE 2 to entry:".

[tombaker]

Note that the ISO WG actually suggests changing the definition to read:

A name given to the resource; usually a name by which the resource is
formally known. 

Older Usage Board members may vaguely recall discussions of this very point in
the early 2000s involving somewhat inconclusive discussions about what might be
considered "formal". Before 2006, the comment for Title read:

Typically, a Title will be a name by which the resource is formally known.

Exercising his judgement as Chair, Tom has edited this proposal into one for
reinstating the earlier comment.

[tombaker]

The second comment (about repeating the Title "element"), seems more appropriate to a user guide than to the main vocabulary specification.

[vcharles89]

I would really prefer to keep the original definition: A name given to the resource; usually a name by which the resource is formally known. In other domain than libraries like museum, the title is really just a name given to the resource. At Europeana, we came back to the original definition to make it clear that a title doesn't have to be title as defined in the library domain. In some case title is used for its functional role only: finding stuff from the search.

[osma]

RDF triples have no order, so when expressing DC metadata as RDF the phrase "second and subsequent Title iterations" becomes somewhat meaningless.

[jneubert]

+1 to @osma . Instead of adding "second and subsequent" title properties, better http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative should be used.
So I tend to agree with @vcharles89 Leave the definition as it is.

[juhahakala]

The original definition has been restored to the ISO draft, and the (added) note has been removed from it. Note that in ISO standards the usage of articles if forbidden in term definitions; therefore just "name given to the resource", not "a name given to the resource".

[aisaac]

So we can close this one if the proposals have been rescinded?

[tombaker]

@aisaac We can indeed close issues for proposals that have been withdrawn... Closing.