On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Andy Powell wrote:
> > > > I believe the fundamental issue is: to what class of objects does our
> > > > vocabulary refer? Is the term "resource" broad enough to cover
> > > > "people" ("agents")?
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> I tend to agree, but note that... our scope (the scope of the UB) is
> constrained by the scope of DCMI. I suspect the intended scope of DCMI is
> wide enough to include 'agents' - though I'm not sure that would be a
> universally accepted view within, say, the DC-AC. It is also interesting
> to question whether the scope includes 'discovery of agents', or just
> 'description of agents to support the discovery of other kinds of
> resources'? I would disagree with a scope that was wide enough to include
> the first of these.
>
> It is also worth noting that the scope of the DCMES, which is presumably
> narrower than the scope of DCMI, does not include agents (i.e. one can't
> describe agents using DCMES). This is implied by the fact that the
> DCMI-Type list does not include Agent (or Person), but I doubt if it is
> made explicit in any DCMES documentation - again, I find this slightly
> suprising. Perhaps I'm wrong.
I have found in my archive the AC message from Warwick Cathro (which I
cannot on principle copy to this open list) of 8 August 2000, where he
points to a strawman at
http://www.nla.gov.au/meta/drafts/dcagent2.html. At first
glance, it would appear:
Name - same as dc:title?
Scheme - placeholder for encoding schemes for Name?
Synonym - element refinement of Name (like dcq:alternative)?
Type - dc:type?
Jurisdiction - an element
Description - dc:description?
Date - dc:date?
Contact - an element of sorts
Relation - dc:relation?
Identifier - dc:identifier?
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|