Eric, I share this concern. Any encoding scheme recommended should
be clearly explained and publically available. Eric, as editor do
you have anyone to help you with copy editing and checking the final
ballot to ensure all these kinds of things get attended to? JP
>
>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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|