[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> We went further and suggested the use of Dublin Core Structured Values
> (provisionally called "DCCITE"), which included JournalIssue as one of
> the
> labels. (See
> http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-citation/1999-12/0000.html
> .) In addition, at the article-metadata level, DC.Relation "IsPartOf"
> should be used to indicate the article's relation to the issue;
> issue-level
> metadata should use DC.Relation "IsPartOf" to indicate its relation to
> the
> volume, and so on.
>
> I have to say though that I'm not now sure of the status of any of these
> recommendations.
DCCITE looks well-formed to me. Suggest that you write up a short spec
similar to DCMI Period, etc. and then submit this to dc-usage (though
there is nothing to stop you using it anyway - it just wouldn't be
"recommended for interoperability" until the hoops have been jumped through).
> Finally, I personally wouldn't support the shoehorning of sponsor into
> DC.Contributor. I don't think a funding agency makes a contribution to
> the
> *content* of a resource, which is how this Data Element is currently
> defined in DC 1.1. Any dumbing down would lump the funding agency in
> with
> other true content-contributors such as Editors, Illustrators,
> Translators,
> etc.
This was following a reading of (suitabley qualified) "Contributor"
as a place to store the identifier of an party who has an interest
in the resource. This is the essence of the "Agent" proposal,
re-using the non-specific member of the CCP trio.
--
Best Simon Cox
|