Eric et al.:
Thanks for the nice start and for the opportunity to review and comment.
Here are some of my observations and questions.
--Erik
Erik Jul
[log in to unmask]
***
1. I see that we are listing the "identifier" for each qualifier. Here are
some questions:
(a) How were the identifiers determined?
(b) Why, in the instance of the Date element, is "date" repeated before each
qualifier? I would have assumed that, for example, the qualifier "created"
with the element "date" would yield "date created." Why do we need to
repeat "date" in the qualifier?
(c) By approving the proposed qualifiers will we also be approving the
identifiers? If one approves of the qualifiers and objects to the
identifier, what is one to do?
2. Have we abandoned the notion of "element qualifier" and "value
qualifier"? I see the ballot organized by "Qualifiers that refine [element
name]," and "Types of encoding schemes." My problem with the latter is the
abundance of troublesome words: "type," "encoding," and "scheme." What's
wrong with element qualifier" and "value qualifier"?
3. I observe that certain element qualifiers and encoding schemes are
interspersed, for example, see Coverage, numbers 7 (element qualifier) and 8
(encoding scheme); 9 (element qualifier) and 10 (encoding scheme). Maybe
it's just me, but separating element qualifiers from value qualifiers seems
less confusing.
4. I don't understand why we are using URI instead of specific
implementations of the URI generic syntax such as URL (see Resource
Identifier, #21).
5. What happened to all the other possible and well-known identifiers such
as ISBN, ISSN, SICI, etc?
6. Thank you for promising to re-order the Relation qualifiers.
7. Sometimes single-word identifiers are lowercase (see #14, "release") and
sometimes they are uppercase (#31, "Requires"). This is not a complete
list, just an example. The editors will need to double-check the entire
document.
8. Why is the word "title" repeated in the identifier, "alternativeTitle"?
Why is the qualifier not just "alternative"? See also question 1b, above.
9. I object to DCMI Agent as a value of "Author/Creator." You have now
confounded the ballot by including this "value" along with the element
qualifiers and value qualifiers. Like others who have protested before, I
feel that this must be removed.
10. I don't think you gain anything by lumping Creator, Contributor, and
Publisher together for the purpose of voting on element qualifiers and value
qualifiers. I urge you to separate these elements and list the proposed
qualifiers for each under their appropriate headings.
11. Why, in the instance of "adaptor," for example (see #57 and following),
have we suddenly gone from verbose but human-readable identifiers to short,
nonsensical abbreviations ("adp)? There seems no reason in the world, if
you can spell out "tableOfContents" (15 characters) that you cannot also
spell out "adaptor" (7 characters). I strongly urge against this practice
of abbreviations.
12. Remove #66.
13. Remove #68.
14. Remove everything related to the "Agent Core" (69-78)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|