On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> I'm forwarding this to the dc-usage for those interested in this thread.
>
> editor hat on: I'll add add this to the ballot as an encoding scheme for
> Subject
>
> editor hat off: I've very concerned about the lack of specificity with
> several of the balloted encoding schemes. While _we_ may "understand" what
> LCC is, my guess is that many people outside of our community do not. This
> seems like a serious impediment for implementers that aren't familiar with
> our community.
Well that is certainly true about a lot of them. So if they don't know
what it is they probably don't want to use it. We are supposed to be
giving users the ability to use an already defined scheme and have a
mechanism to point to that scheme. We never said that we only register
schemes that everyone will understand. Most of these in fact will probably
not be for general use. If we look at value qualifiers for the various
elements we will probably not be able to say that many of them are
generally understood outside of our community. I don't even understand
them all myself (e.g. Coverage).
Rebecca
> > eric
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 8:44 AM
> > To: Miller,Eric
> > Subject: RE: Preballot document for review
> >
> >
> > I'll be happy to give you the information:
> >
> > Encoding scheme for Subject
> > Label: LCC
> > Description: Library of Congress Classification
> > URI: not publicly available (yet)
> > The other schemes don't have URIs.
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Under Subject: Classification
> > > > I've said a few times and never got an answer as to why it wasn't
> > > > included, that it is an obvious omission that LCC
> > (Library of Congress
> > > > Classification scheme) is not included when the other large
> > > > classification
> > > > schemes are. Please add it. It's not even controversial.
> > > >
> > > > Rebecca
> > >
> > > I responded to this point in
> > > http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0044.html
> > and received no
> > > comment.
> > >
> > > If this group believe this is not controversial, than
> > please provide the
> > > necessary information (label, description, uri, etc.) so
> > that we can more
> > > accurately vote on it.
> > >
> > > eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|