On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Stu Weibel wrote:
> I appreciate the tack that Ron has taken here to organize
> one last assault on the status quo. I'll be very happy to
> abide by any clear sign of change here, so don't be bashful
> about speaking up.
OK, I can live with a Description element (containing a running prose,
erm, "description" of the resource) and a Subject element (containing
keywords (unconstrained or constrained) or subject classification terms).
Lets hope that this is going to be the consensus.
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.
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|