On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Stu Weibel wrote:
> To those who churlishly point out that this is, in truth, an expansion of the
> number of elements, I say... yeah? what's your point?
The Churl point of view would, I think, be that
if the date is truly in support of discovery,
and elements must be meaningful if qualifiers are dropped
someone truly searching for a work with 1997 intellectual content would
not be well served by pulling up everything that was digitized in 1997.
However, it may be that Date and Coverage are the two places where we
simply cannot live with the Canberra Qualifiers Rule. This pains me
somewhat, because it's such an elegant rule...
I myself am _not_ being churlish, you understand, though some of my best
friends are churls.
--Robin
|