Rebecca -- sorry I misread your posting.

So to summarize: we'd have DC-Lib records:
- Always have a dc.Title (even if it is the value [No title])
- Always have a dc.identifier and/or a record identifier

That works for me.

Since all of our respective agencies/projects would probably find a
consistent approach to (and hopefully consistent appearance of) record
identifier values useful, on a pragramtic level it would probably be useful
to pursue working with the DC administrative metadata working group to have
a practical record identifier element published and available for use.

Cheers,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Identifier


I didn't really mean to suggest that we change the meaning of identifier,
but that we simply state that either a resource or record identifier (or
both) is mandatory (and perhaps be silent on what a record identifier
actually is). In other words that we do what you suggest and have a
provision for record identifier in some way. I'm not sure exactly how to
do this since it is in the purview of the Administrative group. Certainly
we can consult with them.

Rebecca