On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Renato Iannella wrote:
> --On 1/3/00 2:13 PM +0100 Thomas Baker wrote:
> > -- We can vote on the 'semantics' of the Agent WG proposal -- even
> > Affiliation, Agent Type, etc -- as long as we stop calling them
> > qualifiers of CCP elements of the DCMES and recast some of them
> > (Affiliation, Type, etc) as a ballot for top-level elements of a
> > minimal, first-step Agent Core (or Authority Core).
>
> This is a mistake to do this now. We are not in a position to
> even start developing a new element set.
I disagree. Developing a new element set is in fact what Christel
Hengel is proposing. There is an impressive array of institutions
(German libraries, OCLC) committed to putting alot of energy into this
and moving forward on it quickly.
> There is *nothing wrong* with Version 1.* of DCMES/DCQ consisting
> of a small set of qualifiers for identifying the CCP.
I disagree if it means that we say, in effect, that entities
descriptive of the CCPs (Creator HASA Affiliation) are somehow
"qualifiers" of CCP elements -- especially if those same semantics are
then being replicated in the new Agent/Authority/Person Core.
> It is a simple, small set of qualifiers.
...some of which (eg, Affiliation, Agent Type) are not covered by our
existing principles for qualifiers. To put them into DCMES, we would
have to either approve a new principle (such as the controversial Value
Components) or release DCMES qualifiers that clearly do not fit into
the two principles we have. These very same "semantics" do, however,
fit nicely into a separate Agent Core as top-level elements -- without
needing any new qualifier principles at all.
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|