Thanks Priscilla, these seem sensible changes to me.
Will update the WD

Renato

--On 8/12/99 12:14 PM -0500 Priscilla Caplan wrote:

> 
> 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
> 



Cheers...Renato                            <http://purl.net/net/renato>


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