Appended to this message is a link to the pre-ballot document that will be
used as the basis for the balloting system. Please review this document and
comment on this ASAP. I apologize in advance (again) if I have interpreted
any of the previous comments incorrectly. It was not my intention. There
have been several issues that have been identified in the recent months.
Some with clear solutions some without. Where the necessary 'fill in these
blanks' has occurred, I've tried to document these.
A few points however should be mentioned:
- Comments have been included where appropriate. it's still not clear which
kind of comment (general description or context for dc-usage) should be
included.
- Tokens have been included for each of the items
- Erik Jul raised the issue of grouping together like-qualifiers for the
relation
element. This is not done in this version of the document, but will be done
when the official ballot is introduced.
- The DCMI Point, Box and Agent encoding schemes have been removed... they
have been identified by several people as not being endorsed by the various
working groups (date and coverage). Further investigation (via the WG
documents) confirmed this. We're there other deliverables from these groups
that the editors missed that support these encoding schemes?
- And now for the big one... :)
How exactly to compartmentalize the "agent core" vocabulary from the DCES
qualifier vocabulary was not initially clear. The concepts of 'agentType'
and the identification of two sets of these 'types' (AAT and MARC Relators)
I believe are intended to be used as means for refining the CCP elements.
No other working group focused on the mechanisms for refinement but rather
focused on the actual refining semantics. As such, it was not clear either
(a) how to incorporate this, or (b) where it belonged.
Andy Powell identified this and proposed a way forward. His set of
refinements are aligned with the set identified by Rebecca and a set of
members on the MARC Relator Code working groups. These refinements I
believe satisfy the function requirements identified by the Agent working
groups through the notion of 'agentType' and are inline with the rest of the
elements notion of refinement.
As such, the refinements identified by the LOC group for the CCP elements
are listed in the ballot and all have the value of an 'DCMI Agent'. The
vocabularies for defining tha describing DCMI Agent is in a separate set.
Partitioning this as such seems to make a tremendous amount of sense...
I'll send the rest of the modification notes out tomorrow, but I wanted to
make sure people had a chance to see this...
http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000301.v2.html
eric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|