Andrew Wilson wrote:

> I feel very strongly about the results of the vote on Jurisdiction. It
> demonstrates to me that DC is now run (or worse yet, has been
> hijacked) by librarians for librarians and cannot imagine, let alone
> understand the myriad other non-library uses of DC. It is simply a
> fact that there will be many implementations of DC where the agent
> will NOT be an individual, but will be a corporate entity of some
> sort. Affiliation is a useless element in this case, whereas
> Jurisdiction fulfills the same role in a manner that is perfectly
> consistent with the use of the Agents elements. I simply fail to see
> why we cannot have both affiliation and jurisdiction. It will not harm
> DC, it will not make affiliation unavailable or unusable to those who
> want/need to use it, it does not counter the semantic refinements of
> the Agent elements allowed for under the current ad hoc rules on
> extending DC, and it would assure a significant (in influence if not
> in size) user base that DC is not becoming a narrow library-specific
> standard.

I don't think it's fair to single out librarians here--after all, the
concept of "corporate body" was pioneered by libraries, and we use
corporate bodies every day in our work.
Besides, even "date range" was voted down. That's certainly *not* part
of librarianship.

> And the following did not pass:
>
>   - Jurisdiction
>   - Date Range
>   - Link

James Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]



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