Eric,

I agree that DCPeriod should be added to the ballot but we also need 
to make sure that we report back to the relevant WGs that this was 
done.

Ultimately we need some sort of cover document/report from the Usage 
Committee that documents this and similar decisions we made once the 
final ballot is taken and done.

Is someone collecting this information?

Best, JP

At 9:21 AM -0500 3/2/00, Miller,Eric wrote:
>There have been a couple people that have responded to the pre-ballot
>document indicating that DCPeriod was not officially endorsed by the
>date/coverage group.  While I was surprised at this position, a quick review
>of the WG deliverables revealed this to be true.  And, in a haste for
>getting the ballot out the door for peer review, I temporarily removed this.
>
>Part of the reason I was surprised at this was because I thought we had
>general consensus on this point, unfortunately after checking, some of this
>discussion did not occur on the dc-usage on the list. (Note: keep
>discussions public so we can reference in the future!) The attached message
>was a proposal that had consensus for addressing the range issues identified
>by the date and coverage group.  While the DCPeriod encoding scheme (per se)
>was not approved by these working groups, the functional requirements for
>satisfy date-ranges certainly were. In the lack of no other identified
>encoding scheme for satisfying these ranges (no W3CDTF does not work for
>ranges) and in the extensive discussions [1][2][3] and general support both
>on and off the list, I'd strongly suggest re-introducing this in the ballot
>for voting.
>
>eric
>
>[1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0016.html
>[2] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-01/0141.html
>[3] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0006.html
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Miller,Eric
>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 11:04 AM
>To: 'Andy Powell'; Simon Cox (E-mail); Renato Iannella (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: DCMI Date Range
>
>
>The recent discussion on date ranges, and the fact that there is no defined
>(yet) specification for the encoding rules for the DCMI Date Range, leads me
>to the following suggestion...  Is the following an acceptable modification
>to the current DCMI Date Range balloting item:
>
>Label: DCMI Period
>Defintion: A specification of the limits of a time interval, and methods for
>encoding this in a text string.
>See also: http://www.agcrc.csiro.au/projects/3018CO/metadata/dcperiod/
>Qualifier Class: Encoding Scheme
>
>I believe it basically is a clarifcation on what is suggested by the DC Date
>Group, and would not alter the current votes, but I'm looking for
>confirmation on this before I suggest this to the dc-usage group.
>
>Simon... the machine www.agcrc.csior.au (which is an alias to
>disco.den.dem.csiro.au) traceroutes fine, but seems that the web server is
>down? Can we restrt this?  and if not, can you suggest an alternate URL for
>document?  If these encoding schemes (period, box, etc.) are endorsed I'd
>like to eventually move these to the DC (and consequently DC-mirror) sites
>with appropriate authorships, etc.  Would this be all right with you?
>
>--
>eric
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Cox [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 7:09 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: DCMI Date Range
> >
> >
> > Andy - there was no formal proposal when the ballot was assembled.
> > I've attempted to fill the gap with my draft
> >
> > "DCPERIOD - specification of the limits of a time interval, and
> > methods for encoding this in a text string"
> >
> > http://www.agcrc.csiro.au/projects/3018CO/metadata/dcperiod/
> >
> > which follows the dcbox, dcpoint style closely.   DCPERIOD may need
> > a little fine-tuning, but I believe that it is good enough to serve
> > the purpose here.  There is a big advantage in shifting the detail
> > into a secondary spec like this, I think, while agreeing in-principle
> > that a DCPERIOD scheme is what we need, as well as the
> > obvious scalability
> > and modularity wins.
> >
> >
> > Andy Powell wrote:
> > >
> > > Can someone help me... I know I'm being stupid - what is
> > the URL for the
> > >
> > >   DCMI Date Range
> > >
> > > proposal on the Date voting form?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > --
> > > Distributed Systems and Services
> > > UK Office for Library and Information Networking
> > > University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK            Voice: +44
> > 1225 323933
> > > www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell               Fax: +44
> > 1225 826838
> > >                              Resource Discovery Network -
> > www.rdn.ac.uk
> >
> > --
> > Best			Simon
> >



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%