I personally like the idea of presenting elements in an order that
reflects our notion of what is most common... I don't want to waste a
lot of time arguing that order, but I'd propose that the order they
exiost on the SEMANTICS page at the DC site is reasonable... unless you
feel compelled to change them, why not leave them that way?
stu
-----Original Message-----
From: John A. Kunze [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 1998 6:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: revised (22 Jan) basic elements draft RFC #1
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:14:34 +1000 (EST)
> From: Renato Iannella <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, John A. Kunze wrote:
>
> > Content Intellectual Property
Instantiation
> > ---------------- ---------------------
---------------
> > 3.2 Coverage 3.1 Contributor 3.4
Date
> > 3.5 Description 3.3 Creator 3.6
Format
> > 3.8 Language 3.9 Publisher 3.7
Identifier
> > 3.10 Relation 3.11 Rights 3.15
Type
> > 3.12 Source
> > 3.13 Subject
> > 3.14 Title
>
> I would prefer to swap IP and content, and within each of
those put
> the most used element first:
>
> IP: Creator, Contributor, Publisher, Rights
> Content: Title, Subject, Description, Source, Relation,
Language, Coverage
> Inst: Date, Identifier, Format, Type
Renato,
There's no problem swapping the IP and Content columns, if
that's what
you're asking for. Please confirm.
Within each group, however, I think the group would have a heck
of a time
reaching consensus on what the "most used elements" are.
Alphabetical order
is bone-headedly uncontroversial. (It's even a bit ironic how
some of our
more controversial (embarrassing?) elements have risen to the
top.)
On the other hand, there's lots of merit in your idea of
presenting the
elements in a "most common first" order. Anybody want to chime
in here?
-John
|