All,
I guess I'll be the first one to send a message to this list. On another
list, the following message was posted:
> 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.
His precise statements are beside the point here, but his comment that
librarians are hijacking DC and are trying to make it into a "narrow
library-specific standard" is interesting. I don't believe he is correct
in his suspicion, but if this person feels this way, probably many
others do, too.
My question is: is there any way for librarians to become involved in
this highly important effort that does not automatically make others
feel excluded? I confess that when I read opinions from the e.g.
image/museum community, I often believe they are trying to exclude us.
What is the best way for librarians to react in these cases? I don't
think we should remain silent.
James Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|