On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Stu Weibel wrote:
> PROPOSITION:
>
> The COVERAGE is not well defined and element should be deprecated
>
> PRO: It is as yet unclear as to how the COVERAGE element can be implemented
> in a way that will promote the semantic interoperability that is one
> of the goals of the Dublin Core.
>
> CON: The mapping community participants have indicated a strong desire to
> have and make use of such an element
>
> The image description workshop also endorsed the COVERAGE element
> as a critical element for effective description of images.
>
> Definition of such an element can be developed by practitioners in
> these areas and introduced in the context of suitable collection
> descriptions.
I used to think that coverage should be removed because it only applied to
the geospatial community, but after the image metadata workshop I have
been convinced that it is necessary for many other communities. Recently
while working on mapping the Government Information Locator (GILS) elements
to MARC I searched various GILS databases to see how elements were used.
I found that the one set of dates that were included in GILS records were
coverage dates rather than date of creation or date of distribution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior MARC Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4020 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|