I'm forwarding this to the dc-usage for those interested in this thread.
editor hat on: I'll add add this to the ballot as an encoding scheme for
Subject
editor hat off: I've very concerned about the lack of specificity with
several of the balloted encoding schemes. While _we_ may "understand" what
LCC is, my guess is that many people outside of our community do not. This
seems like a serious impediment for implementers that aren't familiar with
our community.
eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 8:44 AM
> To: Miller,Eric
> Subject: RE: Preballot document for review
>
>
> I'll be happy to give you the information:
>
> Encoding scheme for Subject
> Label: LCC
> Description: Library of Congress Classification
> URI: not publicly available (yet)
> The other schemes don't have URIs.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Miller,Eric wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Under Subject: Classification
> > > I've said a few times and never got an answer as to why it wasn't
> > > included, that it is an obvious omission that LCC
> (Library of Congress
> > > Classification scheme) is not included when the other large
> > > classification
> > > schemes are. Please add it. It's not even controversial.
> > >
> > > Rebecca
> >
> > I responded to this point in
> > http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0044.html
> and received no
> > comment.
> >
> > If this group believe this is not controversial, than
> please provide the
> > necessary information (label, description, uri, etc.) so
> that we can more
> > accurately vote on it.
> >
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|