There's also the point that for some collections, submission does not
automatically lead to acquisition, i.e. some submitted items may be rejected
after a human decision making process, with an interval of time consequently
quite normal between submission and acquisition.
Someone auditing that decision making process would want to know about
submission separately form acquisition.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Roland Schwaenzl
Sent: 26 September 2002 16:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: UB proposals
> From [log in to unmask] Thu Sep 26 17:04 MET 2002
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:05:05 +0100
> From: "Cumming, Maewyn - Office of the e-Envoy e-Government -"
<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: UB proposals
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I'm not sure how clear the difference is between Date.submission (Date of
> submission of the resource (e.g. thesis, articles, etc.), Recommended for
> theses and dissertations) and our DC-Gov Date.Acquired. In theory they
> are not the same thing, and both dates could apply to one resource. i.e. a
> resource could be submitted on Monday, but get delayed in cyberspace or
sent
> around various parts of an organisation and not be properly 'acquired'
until
> the Thursday.
>
> Question is, do we need both of them?
Well...we're not just talking about electronic stuff.
Centuries could have passed between a submission and an aquisition.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 14:52
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UB proposals
>
>
> Note that "dateSubmitted" was approved at the last DC-Usage Board meeting
> as a result of a proposal from DC-Libraries:
> http://dublincore.org/usage/decisions/2002/2002-02.submitted.shtml
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^ 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: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:44:51 +0100
> > From: Mary Tan <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: [UB Proposals: "Access Rights" "Security Classification"
> "Acquired" ]
> >
> > Dear DC users
> >
> > There is a need for these qualifiers.
> > We intend to use "Access Rights" and "Security Classification" for our
KM
> > Applications.
> >
> > As for "Acquired" we prefer date "Submitted". This date indicates when
> the
> > resource is contributed. "Submitted" can be used for all digital objects
> > whether they are acquired or created within the organisation. However,
> this
> > is only a temporary status of the resource. The status will change once
> > the resource is approved and published on the Internet. The date will be
> > changed to "Issued". We are looking for a software which is able to
update
> > the status automatically.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mary Tan
> > Specialist, Content Management
> > National Library Board
> > Singapore
> >
>
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
>
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
> Secure Intranet (GSI) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable
&
> Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
>
> GSI users see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/new2002notices.htm for further
> details. In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk.
>
> ******************************
> The Cabinet Office's computer systems may be monitored and communications
> carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
> and for other lawful purposes.
>
>
|