On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Simon Cox wrote:
.....
....
> Good, so the result of that experiment with "keywords" leaves us here:
>
> 1. many communities find "audience" a useful discovery term
> 2. "audience" does not *refine* any (?) of the DC-15
Given the various views on this I think we might consider a little longer
whether 'intended use' (which I think is what we are trying to express)
qualifies Description or Subject.
Seems to me there might be similar information already included in values
of these elements. One might envisage 'subject level' being included in a
classification code describing a resource. What if someone includes
information about 'intended end user' in a Description, I would have
thought that was acceptable.
I agree with John Kunze's mail that in the longer term we need to have an
extensibility mechanism. Even if such a mechanism were in place though
seems to me it would take time to prove that there was sufficient
requirement for an extension. In the meantime people have to use
qualifiers that don't quite fit (or local extensions). The advantage of a
named qualifier is potential interoperability.
In this particular case seems to me implementations are looking for one
simple slot for 'target' information. If they wanted more structure it
would be better to use IMS.
Rachel
> 3. either each of the communities will add a (local) 16th element
> "audience", or we need the DC-16.
>
> (as Warwick said ...)
> --
> Best Simon
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN (UK Office for Library and Information Networking)
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|