Stu and all
Stu wrote:
>
> I would like to see the DATE subgroup come forward with a
> recommendation before diving into a free-for-all.
Agree, we will seek to do this as soon as possible. Those in the
group please continue to discuss while I am away on holiday. I'm back
early August
> I think its also important
> that folks know what is going on in general and have a chance to
> contribute if they feel so inclined
In the discussion so far we have assumed that the concept decided in
Canberra that an element must make sense without qualification is
valid. Certainly no one has challenged this. Thus this has left us
with the task of working out how far you could change the current
definition of date and the above still be true.
For the record, my view is not very far, others are a little more
adventurous and creative.
The main contenders at the moment I see as
1. Leave the definition as is.
2. Expand a little.
3. Don't define at all, (aptly named "Date pristine") and assume the
date element is the date (singular), what ever that is, of the
resource being described.
Anyone else from the group please feel free to comment or add to
what I have written here while I'm away.
> Andrew... how would people join the subgroup if they wanted to?
Initially Email me, I will seek to set up a proper discussion list,
when I get back to work early August, if the group is going to get
very much bigger than it is presently. But will not be able to do
this until I get back.
Off to catch a plane now.
Andrew
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew Prout
Team Leader, Database Management & Support
Online Services
National Library of New Zealand
Ph +64 4 474-3000 ext 8728
Fax +64 4 474-3042
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|