On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Stu Weibel wrote:
> Jon The Prolific writes,
>
> > Do I understand you right that the DC elements we have on 15th December
> > are _the_ DC elements for this version and we can move onto
> > implementation, etc? If so, then that's great! This discussion has gone
> > on for months now and its time to nail it down and move on.
>
> No, what I meant was that what I posted *yesterday* represents canon law
> UNLESS some band of renegades out there shows ample evidence that theirs
> is the true consensus.
>
> In EITHER case, what gets sealed on the 15th (more likely close of business
> on the 12, cuz I'm travelling the 13th) is it. And yes, we move on to
> implementation.
>
> stu
>
What you posted on Wed. included the following:
>
> 3 Description Label: DESCRIPTION
>
> The topic of the resource, or keywords that describe the subject
> or content of the resource, whether text-based or visual.
> Applications of this element might well include scheme-qualified
> classification data (for example, Library of Congress
> Classification Numbers or Dewey Decimal numbers).
>
There's obviously been much discussion about this one. Will this be
changed as suggested to:
DESCRIPTION: to include an abstract, textual description of the resource
and
SUBJECT: to include keywords that describe the subject or content of the
resource, including scheme-qualified classification data
I just want to verify that what you included on Wed. is no longer "canon
law". I interpreted the recent flurry of messages about this as general
consensus to change as above.
Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ 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] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|