I agree with Stu and Rebecca. If more fields are desired, make
another metadata set.
Regards,
Terry Allen Fujitsu Software Corp. [log in to unmask]
"In going on with these experiments, how many pretty systems do we build,
which we soon find outselves obliged to destroy?" - Benjamin Franklin
A Davenport Group Sponsor: http://www.ora.com/davenport/index.html
>From [log in to unmask] Tue Jan 28 05:39 PST 1997
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:22:59 -0500
From: [log in to unmask] (Stu Weibel)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Subfields
Rebecca writes:
> 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.
I agree with Rebecca. I'm in favor of experimenting with things,
and I can imagine that in the future we might well have rather
complex version of DC records, but to make this path the main road
is, in my view, a mistake, and a distraction from one of the main
design goals: a SIMPLE resource description record.
Let's move cautiously here, and let the needs of the applications
drive the direction. To me, that means simple first and formost,
with an eye towards flexibility to allow elaboration as necessary
stu
|