Thanks David for the feedback. comments follow...
> 1) The format for qualifiers for Resource Type is
> fundamentally different
> from all others - not being specified as a refinement or as a scheme.
You are correct. Since its we don't have concensus on what Resource Types
(or Agent Types) actually are (refinements or encoding schemes) and we're
reluctant to introduce the possibility of a third qualifier (class || type)
these are represented differently. I've stoped being consistent in the
hopes of moving this forward.
> 2) The concept that a "Note", as defined, could be a refinement of
> description inherently violates the dumb-down rule.
yet this is what the WG suggested. When the ballot is in place, please
include this comment in your vote.
> 3) The definitions of Collaborator, Distributor and several
> other so called
> qualifiers of the CPC elements are seriously sloppy, to say
> nothing of the
> concept of qualifying the CPC's this way at all.
These are the defitions (albiet slightly modified) of the Marc Relators for
DC... the suggestion from the last Usage teleconference was to pull these
out for the time being and replace this with what was origincally proposed
by the agent group. More in this in the next few email messages...
> When we have a ballot, it should be clear what the
> consequence of the vote
> is. At present we seem to be voting on a document with the
> introduction
> this one has. How/when/and after what other (if any) action will this
> document be issued and what status will it have?
> David
We are not voting on a document. We (collectively) are simply desiding what
will be voted on... This document is simply a reflection of this that will
be input to the balloting system.
eric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|