Renato said:
>> There is *nothing wrong* with Version 1.* of DCMES/DCQ consisting
>> of a small set of qualifiers for identifying the CCP.
>> It is a simple, small set of qualifiers.
Tom Baker said:
>...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.
If we put these for ballot in a small set of qualfiers for identifying CCP,
and they are voted down, then fine. They can go in Agent Core.
If we put these for ballot in a small set of qualifiers for identifying
CCP, and they are approved, then that means our collective wisdom is that
these belong as DCMES qualifiers for the benefit of communities which
want/need to use them. Which argues to me not that we need to exclude them
from DCMES and put them into Agent Core, but that we need to extend our
principles to include them.
These aren't really either/or. We could allow some of these qualifers into
the base DCMES set, and still put them into an Agent Core.
p
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Caplan
Assistant Director for Digital Library Services
Florida Center for Library Automation
2002 NW 13th Street, Suite 320, Gainesville FL 32609
[log in to unmask]
352-392-9020 x324 (phone)
352-392-9185 (fax)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|