Erik & et al:
Neither coverage nor description are appropriate
elements for the concept of "audience." GEM's
response to create a locally defined element
follows the intent that DC represents the core of
concepts and that others can be defined as
necessary. However, instead of each institution
creating an element for audience (or any other
concept), perhaps our Guidelines could eventually
show links to non-DC defined elements created by
similar institutions (e.g. government, education,
museums, etc.) that could be shared.
Mary Woodley
Social Sciences Librarian
California State University, Northridge
Jul,Erik wrote:
>
> Liddy et al.:
>
> (Hi, Liddy!)
>
> I am having trouble reconciling the DC 1.1 definition of Coverage with its
> use as an expression of intended audience.
>
> I do not equate "the extent or scope of the content," which seems to capture
> an aspect of what the content is *about*, with "audience," which seems to
> capture an aspect of intended use.
>
> --Erik
>
> Erik Jul
> [log in to unmask]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 6:57 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: audience
> >
> >
> > I apologise if I have not read enough and appear as ignorant
> > as I am but ...
> >
> > We (a gateway to educational resources and activities) are
> > using audience
> > and have also thought of it as something that fits better
> > into Coverage
> > than anywhere else when we are not using extra elements but
> > only qualified
> > DC. Our thinking is that coverage is then a sort of 'of and
> > for' element.
> > We could change but description does not seem to be such a
> > handy place for
> > a sub-element. Is anyone using a sub-element DC.description.audience?
> >
> > Liddy
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|