Lisa Murphy wrote:
>Carl,
> If you want the group to proceed with a "specification" phase for a
>machine encodable version of DC, does that in any way preclude its role
>or the use of it as an author-created, non-format-specific document
>descriptor? I hope not.
> While I think many people are more comfortable with having issues like
>date formats settled very specifically, others are looking for general
>guidance for document descriptors in a varied set of environments,
>particularly those in which authors or other non-professional catalogers
>are the key actors. In my case, I am interested in helping
>organizations such as corporations think about what kind of document
>descriptors will help them with their goals (which may differ from a
>library's, incidentally). A specification may not help them, while a
>considered set of what constitutes the core items to describe a document
>(DC) can.
> What I am concerned about then, is that the specification be clearly
>seen as one of several possible specifications of the DC. I'm sure it
>will be a good one -- the work so far attests to that. But many of the
>possible audiences for the DC and Warwick work may lose their way when
>presented with a detailed specification created from a certain
>perspective.
Speaking for Reuters, a *major* information provider/organiser/holder,
what we are looking for is this very thing -- a PRECISE, UNAMBIGUOUS,
and DETAILED specification which, when implemented, will allow our
customers to quickly and easily search our great mass of data, to find
the item(s) they are after.
>Lisa Murphy
>Accounting & Information Systems
>School of Business
>Indiana University
>Bloomington IN 47405-1701
>[log in to unmask]
Misha Wolf,
Globalisation and Standards Manager,
Reuters Limited
|