On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Thomas Baker wrote:

> Eric,
> 
> I agree with those who have argued that we should vote on a small
> set of refinements such as Illustrator instead of using a mechanism
> for refinement (Role) that is unique to this one qualifier.
> 
> If Rebecca has put forward a set of 10 or so basic refinements that
> have the backing of MARC Relator Code working groups, then I strongly
> support putting all 10 on the ballot.  They are clearly refinements --
> no extra principles or mechanisms needed.

I will clarify about how this list came to be. There is no "MARC
Relator Code working group". Eric Miller asked me to look at the MARC
relator terms/codes and suggest the high level ones that could be
selected from the whole list for general role types. I worked with Sally
McCallum on this and then we brought it to the DC-Library Interest Group.
I forwarded the results of that discussion to Eric. However, what is on
the ballot includes some roles that were not part of the list; I'm not
sure how that came to be. 

> If the DCMI Agent qualifier is essentially the old Role qualifier
> reproposed under a different name, then I still agree with those who
> suggest that this concept needs more work.  The vote for Role in the
> first round was 8 reject and 7 accept.  I believe that adopting the
> approach suggested by Rebecca would address many, if not most, of
> the concerns expressed by those who voted to reject.

I don't think it is the old "role qualifier". As I understand it "role" is
not the qualifier, but these specific types of roles are element
refinements for the 3 agent elements.

There actually needs to be a few rules/comments attached to any such
list.For instance, some roles are applicable only to Contributor, some
only to Publisher, etc.

Rebecca
 
> Tom
> 
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> > - 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... 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Dr. Thomas Baker                                            [log in to unmask]
> GMD Library
> Schloss Birlinghoven                                           +49-2241-14-2352
> 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                              fax +49-2241-14-2619
> 
> 







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