--On 2/3/00 3:57 PM -0500 Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> 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.
The final proposal from the Agent WG included Role as a qualifier
which you then could choose values from a number of vocabularies
(MARC or AAT) or just free text.
The idea behind this was to allow other vocabularies to be
used (that may meet a particular communities needs better).
So, for example, DCMI *may* even wish to develop such a vocabulary
(in the future).
For now, the proposal is for a Role qualifier. This gives us the
maximum freedom to meet our communities needs.
> 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.
Yes - exactly what the Agent WG put into their final proposal [1]
(which is LOST in the ballot form) - See the NOTEs in Section 2.4
Cheers...Renato <http://purl.net/net/renato>
Principal Research Scientist, DSTC <http://www.dstc.edu.au>
[1] http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-agents/files/wd-agent-qual.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|