In formulating this proposal, we did think about the various pieces of
information that could be included here. We decided just to suggest one
element, since it wasn't clear the purpose for recording the various
possibilities as separate subelements. Holding Location could include an
institution, a sublocation within that institution, a call number, a local
identifier, etc. As future work we could consider defining element
refinements to Holding Location that could include what you mention.

It isn't clear how the Identifier under Holding Location would relate to
the Identifier element. I would suspect that it would be limited to a
local identifier, otherwise Identifier would be used? Or do you mean for
it to identify an institution rather than a resource?

Rebecca

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  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 13:28:28 +0200
> From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Wei=DF=2C_Berthold=22?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: UB proposal "Holding Location"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we agree to this very important proposal. But we think that you have to
> separate the various information, which could be given in this element.
>
> - Ownership: Name of the institution, which is the owner of the resource
> - Call number: If it is accessible, a call number for the resource is
> helpful.
> - Identifier: The user is interested to get access to this resource. So a
> URI can be useful and enables you to get access to the bibliographic record
> (or to a local copy of the document) and perhaps enables you to make
> interlibrary loan or document delivery.
>
> You have to take care that there could be several *holding locations*, so
> *holding location* is an element on a local level.
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:33:48 +0200
> From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Wei=DF=2C_Berthold=22?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: UB proposal "captured (refinement for Date)"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we do not agree to this proposal because of the comment.
>
> We think that the right definition for date.captured is *the date at which
> the object or the resource is transferred or taken over*. But it is not the
> date the resource was digitized. First the object has to be acquired (=
> captured) and after that it will be digitized. Instead of date.digitized we
> would use a new date.created for a new manifestation. The proposal is
> correct, if you only use date.captured for taking a snapshot, or a local
> copy of a document (e.g. in the meaning of archiving the resource).
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:35:42 +0200
> From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Wei=DF=2C_Berthold=22?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: UB Proposal: "Submitted / Accepted / Version"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we agree to the proposals for date.accepted and date.submitted. Both
> refinements are important dates in the life cycle of a resource. They are
> used in Germany by more than 60 university libraries for describing online
> theses (see: METADISS, metadata format for online theses,
> http://deposit.ddb.de/metadiss.htm#pruef_dat). But these dates could also be
> used in other contexts, e.g. for the submission and acception of an article
> by a publisher.
>
> We agree to the proposal "version as a new element refinement for the
> element Description", too.
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:41 +0200
> From:    Roland Schwaenzl <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DC-Libraries Working Group Proposal: Copyright qualifier for Date
>          element
>
> Chris wrote
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > In a case like the proposed Copyright qualifier for Date element [1]
> > where it is possible to effectively qualify Rights with a date using RDF
> > without a new refinement, *something like* this:
> >
> >   <dc:rights>
> >     <rdf:value xml:lang="en">
> >       Copyright 2002 FooBar Ltd.
> >     </rdf:value>
> >     <dc:date>
> >       <dcterms:W3CDTF>
> >         <rdf:value>2002-04-24T12:15:37Z</rdf:value>
> >       </dcterms:W3CDTF>
> >     </dc:date>
> >   </dc:rights>
> >
> > Should this way of doing it be mentioned as an equivalent way of doing
> > it or should it be discouraged or is it best not mentioned since it
> > can't be doing using (X)HTML or XML DC metadata? Just a thought...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/dc/copyright-date_prop.html
> >
>
> Hmmm...some problem with the RDF (you use dc:rights as a typed node?! or do you assume parseType="resource"?)
>
> Think your argument is, that the date in question should be viewed as part of a rights statement.
>
> Looking at the proposal the intended semantics of "copyright" isn't quite clear to me - so it's hard to talk about.
>
> A legally binding statement can only be claimed
> by some legal entity [Person/Organization] (In Chris case: FooBar Ltd.) Maybe there is a specific legal system
> assumed implicitly, in which such statements are necessary and the circumstances are obvious?
>
> Does the DC-Library group address a specific transaction event (registration of copyright at some specific organization?)
> with the rights management for a resource?
>
> Some clarification by dc-lib?
>
> Cheers,
> rs
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:10:25 +0100
> From:    Ann M Wrightson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: UB Proposal "Physical Object"
>
> However this is resolved, the UB should ensure that what DC does is not
> encroaching on "territory" for defining objects, extents and locations which
> belongs properly to other standardization perspectives.
> For example, geographical information systems standards, and engineering
> data standards, both have well developed concepts (much more complex than DC
> requires) - with further work in hand.
>
> Ann W.
>
>
> Ann M Wrightson MA MBCS
> Prif Ymgynghorydd / Principal Consultant
> alphaXML Cyf/Ltd
> http://www.alphaxml.com
> Gwasaneuthau XML: e-Lywodraeth, e-Fasnach, e-Gyhoeddi
> XML services to Government and Industry
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:32:57 +0100
> From:    [log in to unmask]
> Subject: 21st Unicode Conference, May 2002, Dublin,
>          Ireland -- Just 2 weeks to go!
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Just 2 weeks to go > Register now! > Just 2 weeks to go > Register now!
> ***********************************************************************
>
>          Twenty-first International Unicode Conference (IUC21)
>         Unicode, Localization and the Web: The Global Connection
>                     http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc21
>                              14-17 May 2002
>                              Dublin, Ireland
>
> ***********************************************************************
>   Have you colleagues in Europe who might not know of the Conference?
>  If yes, forward them this reminder, so they can take advantage of the
>             first European Unicode Conference in two years!
> ***********************************************************************
>
> NEWS
>
>  > Early bird rate ends May 1!
>
>  > Hotel guest rooms still available at the group rate!
>
>  > Visit the Conference Web site ( http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc21 )
>    to check the Conference program and register.  To help you choose
>    Conference sessions, we've included abstracts of talks and speakers'
>    biographies!
>
>  > Choose between the 13 tutorials, 51 talks, 2 panels and 2 keynotes,
>    presented by over 60 speakers!
>
>  > Find out about the Workshop on Standards in Localisation, organised
>    by the Localisation Research Centre (LRC), and taking place in the
>    same venue on 13 May -- See: http://lrc.csis.ul.ie !
>
> CONFERENCE SPONSORS
>
>    Agfa Monotype Corporation
>    Basis Technology Corporation
>    Lionbridge
>    Localisation Research Centre
>    Microsoft Corporation
>    Reuters Ltd
>    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>
> GLOBAL COMPUTING SHOWCASE
>
>    Visit the Showcase to find out more about products supporting the
>    Unicode Standard, and products and services that can help you
>    globalize/localize your software, documentation and Internet content.
>    For details, visit the Conference Web site.
>
> CONFERENCE VENUE
>
> The Conference will take place at:
>
>    The Burlington Hotel
>    Upper Leeson Street
>    Dublin 4, Ireland
>
>    Tel: (+353 1) 660 5222
>    Fax: (+353 1) 660 8496
>
> CONFERENCE MANAGEMENT
>
>    Global Meeting Services Inc.
>    8949 Lombard Place, #416
>    San Diego, CA 92122, USA
>
>    Tel: +1 858 638 0206 (voice)
>         +1 858 638 0504 (fax)
>
>    Email: [log in to unmask]
>       or: [log in to unmask]
>
>                            *  *  *  *  *
>
> Unicode(r) and the Unicode logo are registered trademarks of Unicode,
> Inc.  Used with permission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------- --
>         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of DC-GENERAL Digest - 24 Apr 2002 to 25 Apr 2002 (#2002-37)
> ****************************************************************
>