We considered deposit date to mean date the resource was deposited for
copyright, not a general deposit date which is more administrative
metadata about the resource. If this is confusing, we could take that
statement out of the proposal (it is not in the definition of the element
refinement itself).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:34:26 +0200
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Wei=DF=2C_Berthold=22?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: UB Proposal "Copyright (refinement for Date)"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we agree to the proposal, but we have some problems with the following part
> in the proposal (http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/copyright-date_prop.html):
> *deposit dates are also considered under copyright date*.
>
> Is there really a connection between deposit dates and copyright dates? We
> think that deposit dates are local elements, which should be used in context
> with the depository and therefore date.archived would be correct.
>
> But in DC-Lib
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/10/12/library-application-profile/#Dat
> e) this comment is missing, so we agree.
>
> Best regards
> C. Hengel, B. Weiss
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Berthold Weiss
> Die Deutsche Bibliothek
> Deutsche Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main
> Office for Library Standards
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49-69-1525-1404
> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1010
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ddb.de
>
|