I lean towards including the short blurb about CVs being good things and
that a future document will discuss them. I think John is right that
such a redirection should be explicit... Is there a way we can point to
the Qualified Semantics RFC? [insert response from Paul Miller and Tony
Gill here]
On Wednesday, October 29, 1997 11:56 AM, John A. Kunze
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
> [ I'm forwarding with permission a suggestion to change the
> draft's advice on controlled vocabularies. It seems to me
> that if we redirect the reader, it should be to specific
> document in the series. Comments? -John ]
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:06:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Marc Salomon <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "John A. Kunze" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: new draft of DC basic elements
>
> Hi again,
>
> 3.3. Subject and Keywords Label: "Subject"
>
> The use of controlled vocabularies and formal
> classification schemes is encouraged.
>
> This document describes unqualified DC. Should it encourage the
> use of qualifiers without saying that it is moving outside the
> scope imposed on it?
>
> I like CV's but this is not the place to discuss them. If you
> must, how about:
>
> The use of controlled vocabularies and formal classification
> schemes is encouraged and although out of scope for this
> document, will soon be described formally in this series.
>
> -marc
>
|