I understand that the position is that the data model should accommodate
semantic requirements, and that we are in any case moving to a point of
departure for DCQ not the final destination, so to speak. I would support
the idea of a vote plus wording.
Matt
> I would like to propose that we now vote on the Role
> qualifier. The proposed wording is below. Please note
> that the examples look the same but the difference is in
> the definition of the Option.
>
> Is this OK? If not, please propose new wording.
>
> (Please note - this is NOT a vote yet)
>
> Cheers... Renato
>
> ----START-VOTE
>
> Option A
> --------
>
> A Role qualifier that is based on values selected from
> an identified exisiting controlled vocabulary, including
> the ability to have uncontrolled values.
>
> For example: Role = "Actor"
> Vocab = "MARC-Relator"
>
> Role = "Dishwasher"
> Vocab = ""
>
>
> Option B
> --------
>
> A Role qualifier that is based on a set of values defined
> by and maintained by DCMI, including the ability to have
> uncontrolled values.
>
> For example: Role = "Actor"
> Vocab = "DCMI-ROLE1"
>
> Role = "Dishwasher"
> Vocab = ""
>
>
>
> Option C - There should not be a Role Qualifier
> --------
>
> Option D - Abstain
> --------
>
> ---END VOTE
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|