Following the general thread of this argument, I
think it is not in the best interest of the DC
community to force qualifiers on to inappropriate
elements in order to satisfy a local need. Ray has
nicely summarized our three choices, and from my
point of view the third choice is the most
advantageous. DC core was designed as "...  a
metadata element set intended to facilitate
discovery of electronic resources. Originally
conceived for author-generated description of Web
resources ... The characteristics of the Dublin
Core that distinguish it as a prominent candidate
for description of electronic resources fall into
several categories: Simplicity ..." The majority
of Web sites would not find audience an important
concept. If the number of elements start to
proliferate to satisfy too many specialized needs,
the DC core will no longer be simple and easy to
implement - in other words, it will not be the
standard adopted. Ray's third alternative of a
cross-domain set (GCD) should be seriously
considered.

Mary Woodley
Social Sciences Librarian
California State University, Northridge

Andy Powell wrote:
> 
> ...  Audience does not refine the
> semantics of Subject, so it is not a valid element qualifier.

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
3. either each of the communities will add a
(local) 16th element 
"audience", or we need the DC-16. 

(as Warwick said ...)
-- 
Best                    Simon

Dublin Core is a "core" set; that fact is
inherrent in its name. The DC
community seems to want to develop a general cross
domain set. Nothing
wrong with that, but a "general cross domain set"
is not a "core set".
A core element is one that  most everyone who
implements a cross-domain
element-set  supports.  A  (non-core) cross domain
element is an
element
considered to be useful but not necessarily
universally-supported.

'audience' is clearly a useful cross-domain
element, and for discussion
sake, assume it is not a core element. (Whether it
is or is not is
beyond the scope of this message. If, when the
original 15 elements
were
agreed-upon, there had been an 'audience' champion
and not a 'coverage'
champion, then 'audience' would be a DC element
and we might now be
debating 'coverage'.)

Three approaches to accomodating 'audience' have
been considered:
(1) Add it as the 16th element.
(2) Wedge it into one of the existing 15 elements:
subject,
description,
or coverage.
(3) Include it in element sets that are supersets
of, or which
"import",  DC.

If 'audience' were a core element, (1) or (2)
would be appropriate
(which one,  (1) or (2),  is beyond the scope of
this message) but
assuming that 'audience' is not core, that leaves
approach (3),
which is criticized because of the possibility of 
interoperability
problems caused by the potential proliferation of
'audience' elements
in different element sets.

This is nothing more than a namespace problem.
Since it seems  that
the DC community wants to develop a general cross
domain set, and since
the DC community is probably the appropriate body
to do so, I think the
solution is for the DC community to define a new
set, the General Cross
Domain set, of which DC is  subset. Whether a new
namespace is
necessary, I don't know (I would personally be
happy if the DC
namespace

were used for the GCD set, as long as there is an
intellectual
distinction between the two sets).

I think what I am suggesting is consisitent with
what John Kunze
suggested earlier today.

--Ray



--
Ray Denenberg
Library of Congress
202-707-5795
[log in to unmask]


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
> >
> >


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%