Ricky's proposed element definitions seem so straightforward and
reasonable (and useful) that it is hard for me to imagine objections.
I've had failure's of imagination before, so if I'm wrong, by all means
speak up, but in the absence of objections I propose we accept them as
community consensus.
stu
On Wednesday, September 24, 1997 7:09 PM, Ricky Erway
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> Meta2 gang,
>
> Below are proposed element definition changes from the group working
> on extending the use of the Dublin Core to other types of resources.
> We believe these changes will make the elements less specific to
> allow for other uses, but will not negatively affect previous or
> on-going work.
>
> Since the element definitions have evolved (for the better) in their
> new incarnation at http://purl.oclc.org/docs/metadata/dublin_core/
> the definition changes we propose are limited to just two elements:
>
> Note: minuses are deletions and pluses are additions.
>
> 5.Publisher [less specific to allow for other uses]
> Label: PUBLISHER
> The entity responsible for ---making---+++issuing+++ the resource
> ---available in its present form---, such as a publishing house, a
> university department, or a corporate entity.
>
> to read:
> The entity responsible for issuing the resource, such as a publishing
> house, a university department, or a corporate entity.
>
> 7.Date [less specific]
> Label: DATE
> The date the resource was ---made available in its present
> form---+++issued+++. Recommended best practice is an 8-digit number
> in the form YYYY-MM-DD as defined in
> http://purl.org/metadata/dc/8601-date-profile, a profile of ISO 8601.
> In this scheme, the date element +++value+++, 1994-11-05, corresponds
> to November 5, 1994. Many other schema are possible, but if used,
> they should be identified in an unambiguous manner.
>
> to read:
> The date the resource was issued. Recommended best practice is an
> 8-digit number in the form YYYY-MM-DD as defined in
> http://purl.org/metadata/dc/8601-date-profile, a profile of ISO 8601.
> In this scheme, the date element value, 1994-11-05, corresponds to
> November 5, 1994. Many other schema are possible, but if used, they
> should be identified in an unambiguous manner.
>
> Please air your reactions on the list.
>
> Ricky
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
|