On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Renato Iannella wrote:

> If you are against any of these results, then please make
> your arguments (*very* strongly with *significant* reasons)
> for changes.

Sigh... for the record, I find it *very* difficult to argue against (or
indeed to vote on) these at this time because your proposals are not
phrased in terms of the template that Stu has asked us to use.

- working group defining the qualifier
- which DC element is being qualified?
- proposed name of the qualifier
- definition of the qualifier
- does the qualifier refine the semantics of the element (y/n)
- is the qualifier a controlled vocabulary (enumerated list of values)
  maintained by the DCMI? (y/n)
- is the qualifier a controlled vocabulary (enumerated list of values)
  maintained by another organization? (y/n).  If yes, please supply a URL
  pointing to further information about the vocabulary (if available).
- is the qualifier a formal encoding format (y/n).  If yes, please supply
  a URL pointing to further information about the format (if available).
- justification/explanation (optional but recommended)
- identify potential overlap/conflicts with other qualifiers if applicable
  (optional)

Andy
--
UK Office for Library and Information Networking
University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK            Voice: +44 1225 323933
www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell               Fax: +44 1225 826838





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