From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 09:50:30 EDT
I agree with Dom, as well.
One shouldn't blindly follow guidelines without first applying some
I think this is precisely the case.
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 14:34, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 03:21, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> > Dom Lachowicz <email@example.com> wrote in
> > news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> > >> No, it's actually not. 'Subject' == 'Keywords'!
> > >> <URL: http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/ >:
> > >
> > > Actually, I was addressing the fact that I really *disliked*
> > > their globbing of Subject+Keywords into the same tag.
> > Well, it's only an (arguably) poor choice of name. Scientific
> > papers and books include a list of 'subjects' covered, and Web
> > pages include a list of 'keywords' or 'key phrases', but they're
> > basically the same thing.
> These guys need to get a good grip on semantics and the proper usage of
> several English words. They're using words that are related, but not
> synonyms as though they were synonyms.
> Subject != Keywords. Even "Subjects Covered or Topics" != Keywords.
> Maybe they are similar but it's still not (nearly) correct. "Subject" is
> much closer to "Description" semantically, but Descriptions are much
> longer than Subjects in practice (where description = a 1+ sentence
> summary). So what they're saying is:
> Subject = Description != Subject
> which just doesn't make sense to me....
> Subject = Topic
> Description = 1+ sentences about Subject (summary)
> Keywords = Indexable words related to subject, description, author
-- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 15 2002 - 09:54:45 EDT