Thanks Andy for resending your comments/questions... I must your early post
in the flurry of email. :(  Comments below...

> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
> 
> > v1) http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000304.html  
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > v2) http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000308.html 
> > 
> > Please (ASAP) respond and provide justification for which 
> position should be
> > included in the official ballot.
> 
> I prefer something along the lines of v1, i.e. a separation 
> of Creator,
> Contributor and Publisher.
> 
> Having said that, I don't like the presentation of either... sorry!  I
> made some detailed comments on the way you've presented v1 in 
> a previous
> message.  To repeat the comment...
> 
> What is
> 
> 'DCMI Agent'
> 
> in 60), 67) and 69) of v1?  An 'encoding scheme' or an 
> 'element refiner'
> or something else?

err... I'd put this in the 'something else' catagory (sorry, but to me it
dosen't make sense to me as either an 'encoding scheme' or an 'element
refiner').

What this is (simply) trying to say is the following:

The value of the 'creator', 'contributor' and 'publisher' elements can be an
'Agent'.  An Agent may be a Person, Organization, Object or Event.  An Agent
may also be described (but are not limited to) using the following elements
'name', 'affiliation' and 'agentID'.

The fact that we're breaking everything up into individual components so we
can vote on each thing is rather confusing in this case...

> Furthermore, I do not understand why '79)  DCMI Family Name First' and
> '77)  URI' have been moved out of the vote into the DCMI Agent core
> section.  DCFNF and URI are both perfectly acceptable 
> encoding schemes for
> Creator, Contributor and Puiblisher and should be included in 
> the vote.

All this is saying is that the value of the 'name' element can be encoded
using the 'FNF' encoding scheme.  And the value of the 'agentID' element can
be encoded using the 'URI' encoding scheme (in this case the same 'URI'
encoding scheme that is used for the 'Identifier' and 'Relation' elements).

This is what the agent WG proposed.  I understand your point, but they did
not say that FNF and/or URI were acceptable encoding schemes for the values
of 'creator', 'contributor' and 'publisher'... 

Did I interpret their deliverables incorrectly?

> A general point...  I understand the reluctance to proceed 
> with a ballot
> that is not based on the Agent WG recommendations.  However, 
> if we proceed
> with a v2 ballot then, based on the experience of the last 
> voting round, I
> strongly suspect that we will not get a 66% vote in favour of 
> any of the
> Agent proposals because they do not fall cleanly into either 
> of the two
> principles.  Are we happy to proceed into a vote with that danger?  
> Again, the process note from Stu made it clear that the 
> current vote will
> be based on only the two principles (please correct me if I've
> interpretted this wrongly!).

This is exactly how I interpret this as well...  and as such am still not
sure how to proceed.

eric



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