> From: John Perkins <[log in to unmask]>, 17 Mar 2000 12:38:25
>
> yes it does and it is, in my opinion, a good example of poor
> definitions (mostly unclear or incomplete) and explanation of what
> ISO 11179 is supposedly trying to make clear. So while it may not
> be new to DCMI it's still not clear. For example Label and
> Identifier have very terse definitions and to many people the
> differences especially the subtle ones are not obvious. More
> explanation would go a long way.
I'm also concerned that the 11179 definitions in the DC1.1 document
(which I assumed was the basis for the DCQ document) are unclear.
We need to know what we're agreeing to before we can explain it
to users. Whether we modify the 11179 format or use a different
mechanism altogether, I think clarity must be our first concern.
-John
>
> At 5:03 PM +0100 3/17/00, schwaenzl wrote:
> >Dear JP,
> >
> >http://purl.oclc.org/docs/core/documents/rec-dces-19990702.htm
> >
> >
> >uses ISO 11179 for DC1.1.
> >
> >So ISO 11179 is not new to DCMI. The introduction given there could
> >be easily adapted
> >to the present pre-ballot.
> >
> >
> >Cheers
> >rs
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|