On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Tony Gill wrote:
> Jon Knight wrote:
>
> > I've added these suggestions to the DC Qualifiers and DC Resource Types
> > drafts at <URL:http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-Qualifiers.html> and
> > <URL:http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-ObjectTypes.html>. Note that
> > these documents are drafts and are attempts to record a potential base for
> > a standard set of qualifier values and resource types, but they aren't
> > actually "blessed" by anyone. It might be worth putting them out as
> > Internet Drafts for wider discussion in the network community - does
> > this sound like a reasonable idea?
>
> Yes, but even if we could get some consensus from the other members of
> this list that the Qualifiers and Resource Types were 'officially
> blessed' as a means of getting DC into live web pages, that would be a
> good start.
>
> T.
> --
> == Tony Gill ======================= Programme Leader: ADAM & VADS ==
> Surrey Institute of Art & Design * Farnham * Surrey * GU9 7DS * UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1252 722441 x2427 * Fax: +44 (0)1252 712925
> === [log in to unmask] = http://adam.ac.uk/ = http://vads.ahds.ac.uk/ ==
I personally don't feel like there's been enough discussion about
qualifiers to officially bless these. I think there are too many
qualifiers in the qualifiers documents, potentially resulting in very
complex records. For instance I question whether we want all the
qualifiers listed for author, contributor or publisher (e.g. home and
office phone numbers and FAX numbers); I don't feel that they belong with
the metadata about a document. In addition, I don't agree with all the
references to USMARC. For instance, under Language USMARC is listed as a
qualifier, ignoring the relationship between Z39.53 and USMARC (basically
they are the same; when USMARC is changed Z39.53 is also changed and vice
versa). I haven't had a chance to entirely go through the document and
comment, but I definitely wouldn't bless it as is. (I realize a
tremendous amount of work went into this document and it's a very good
start.)
As for the DC-Object types document, I think this also needs more
discussion. Many of the categories are not mutually exclusive, and
if they're not, guidelines need to be included to indicate what the
metadata provider should use if the object can fall into more than one
category. We in the library world have spent much time discussing genre
types and it's a complex issue.
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] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|