I should really refer to the original discussion in context. See
http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-grou
p/browse_thread/thread/cda288a029264c4e
which I think should be visible even if you aren't logged in (or a
member of that group).
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata
> Initiative's Usage Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Pete Johnston
> Sent: 05 June 2008 14:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bibliographic resources and events (FW: minor problem)
>
> Hmm, I was convinced, but I'm now getting some arguments against this.
>
> What about the case of phone calls? See e.g.
>
> http://www.itsmarc.com/crs/naco0202.htm
>
> I guess there may be a transcription of the call, but it does
> seem to be the case that it is the actual phonecall which is
> being cited in those examples.
>
> Pete
>
|