norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2004/03/14/threeDateshttp://norman.walsh.name/2004/03/14/threeDates/comments.atom2012-02-13T08:36:16.925486ZComment 1 on /2004/03/14/threeDateshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012004-03-17T02:32:14Z2004-03-17T02:32:14ZMark Pilgrimda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Atom dates are, in fact, defined in terms of Dublin Core. This was made clear in the 0.2 snapshot but doesn't seem to have made it into Mark Nottingham's drafts yet.

http://diveintomark.org/public/2003/08/atom02spec.txt

They were imported into the Atom namespace under the twisted logic that all the required elements should be in the Atom namespace, because that would be simpler. (Not everyone shares your prediliction for XML namespace porn.) I'm not defending the decision, but there it is.

Comment 2 on /2004/03/14/threeDateshttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022004-03-18T03:34:03Z2004-03-18T03:34:03ZRobert Sayre

The DCMI Metadata Terms do account for your use case, but I'd say versionOf, replacedBy, etc. are what you should use. I can't find any examples of dcterms:issued being used the way you're suggesting.

Publication date and the significance of an edit seem orthogonal to me. Also, the more significant the edit, the more valuable a comparison between the two versions would be. If an aggregator subscribed to your feed between edits, the comparison would be lost. Why not keep both versions around and describe the relation?