--On 4/12/99 12:29 PM +0000 Andy Powell wrote:
> 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.
Andy, I think that all these questions are implicitly answered in our
proposal document for each qualifier.
The only question that is not is the 5th question.
At the stage, the qualfiers we voted for are all classified
as Value Components, and hence have the answer "no" to the
5th question.
> - 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)
Cheers...Renato <http://purl.net/net/renato>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|