At 01:09 PM 12/7/99 +1000, you wrote:
>
>The DC Agents WG is pleased to release an update to the Working Draft
>for Creator/Contributor/Publisher element qualifiers:
>
>??http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-agents/files/wd-agent-qual.html
>
>Comments and feedback are welcome (please see the Status section of
>the WD for instructions).
>
>The DC Agents WG will release the final version on 10th December 1999.
Most of these comments are editorial (though I may inadvertently trip over
issues that came up before I joined this list)...
Section 1, para 1 -- Can we use the term "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set"
instead of "Dublin Core Element Set".
2.1. Agent type. Definition. I find "Indicates the class of the named
Agent" to be wholly useless as a definition, since "class" could be
anything -- there's no way to figure out what Type is without knowing the
value qualifiers. I would prefer something like "Indicates what type of
entity the named Agent is." This is not a whole lot better, but some.
2.1. Comment. "Other terms may be [not maybe] used but are [not is] not
recommended."
2.1. Associated value qualifiers:
-- Instead of the phrase "acts as an entity", could we use "acts as an
agent"? Isn't that what we're really saying?
-- Organization. "A group that [not that that] acts as ..."
-- Object. needs end period
2.4. Agent role.
-- "Such lists [not list] of terms..."
-- "Some schemes may contain values..." Could we call these "vocabularies"
not "schemes"? We're using the term "vocabularies" throughout -- having
the different word "schemes" here makes me wonder if it refers to something
other than a vocabulary.
2.5. Agent Identifier.
-- Definition. "An unambiguous reference to the named [not name] Agent."
-- Associated value qualifiers. "The ... URI ... should be used to [not
for the] encode the value.
p
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|