"Rebecca S. Guenther" wrote:
>
> 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.
... and as a consequence the list is rather library-centric.
I already [1] drew attention to additional roles that are needed in a
more dataset-centric context. The following useful roles were missing
from Rebecca's shortened list last time I looked.
- CommissioningAgent, Collector, Processor, Custodian, Owner, Leader, Scientist, Coordinator, Assistant, RightsHeldBy, HasHomepage
I really don't think that a shortened list is the way to go.
There are perfectly good, maintained, vocabularies out there.
The problem is, certainly, that it is the *value* drawn from the
list that is the refiner, not the *list* itself. This exposes a
deficiency in the model, but the semantic requirement is quite
clear and IMHO it is something that we can vote on now.
On Valentines day I put it this way [2]:
==
IMHO the way we should be voting on element refiners is
"do the values on list XXXX refine DCMES element YYYY?"
In other words we should be voting on complete, named, lists of refiners for each element.
Some of the "lists" may only have a single member, but that is OK.
==
Then, when this semantic requirement is clear, it is up to the syntax notes
to explain how to implement it. e.g. namespaces.
[1] sorry - I can't find the reference now
[2] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0095.html
--
Best Simon
|