-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Allow multiple instances of dcterms:modified #841
Comments
How do you construct Release Identifiers? By using the latest modification time? |
Either the reading system will have to calculate which is the latest or we'd need requirements like the latest modified time must be listed first and reading systems must use the first one encountered. I suggest we defer, as I'm sure there are better ways we could do revision histories. A date alone isn't going to be all that meaningful to a user. |
I agree with @mattgarrish |
I don't think it is the place and time to manage revision history. |
Since we've acknowledged that the release identifier hasn't worked out as expected, there's not a strong case to keep restricting dcterms:modified to a single instance. This would also match the dc guidance. We may want to define the first in dom order as the last modification date, though, so it's not open to interpretation. |
But what about release identifier? I think we still need such identifier.
…--
Ori Idan CEO Helicon Books
http://www.heliconbooks.com
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 6:44 PM Matt Garrish ***@***.***> wrote:
Since we've acknowledged that the release identifier hasn't worked out as
expected, there's not a strong case to keep restricting dcterms:modified to
a single instance.
This would also match the dc guidance
<https://www.dublincore.org/resources/userguide/creating_metadata/#Modified>
.
We may want to define the first in dom order as the last modification
date, though, so it's not open to interpretation.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#841 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAB43QH7JF4SCN3TQP6DL43TBZRNPANCNFSM4COGUOVA>
.
|
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-03-04 List of resolutions:
View the transcript2. Allow multiple instances of
|
@mattgarrish, @wareid it was not clear to me from the minutes if there is an editorial change to do on this based on the discussion, so I did not close the issue. If there is no change to do, one of you can close it I guess... |
No, there was just a general comment from @wareid that if I see anything in the section that could be improved to feel free to fix. I think it's fine as-is for having only one value. |
I think it's a pity only one dcterms:modified META is allowed. Allowing multiple dcterms:modified META elements would allow the preservation inside a package of the history of changes and even provide the user with it if necessary.
(Submitted by Daniel Glazman)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: