 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Mon Jun 11 22:09 MET 2001 > X-Meta: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description about=""> > <dc:publisher> UKOLN > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:59:04 +0100 > From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Agent Core? > To: [log in to unmask] > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Andy Powell wrote: > > > > C) Agent-Properties (Ex: Address, Name) > > ... > > > FWIW, my personal view is that any agent working group should be given a > > > strong steer in the direction of making recommendations for the use/re-use > > > of existing work outside of DCMI (e.g. vCard, MARC relators, etc.) rather > > > than inventing new stuff for this. > > > > In what form would such recommendations come before the Usage Board, if > > at all? Because of our grammar, we cannot simply create a qualifier > > pointing to MARC relators the way we point to LC Subject Headings. And > > if the Agent WG recommended, say, vCard, should the Usage Board have > > any role in ratifying that recommendation? > > They wouldn't come to the usage board at all. vCard elements are similar > to the IEEE elements used in the DC-Education recommendation. They would > not need ratifying by us - it would be inappropriate. > > The MARC relator codes are, in effect, element qualifiers taken from a > non-DC namespace - as with any element qualifier they are simply new > elements that happen to be refinements of one or more DCMES elements. > Again, we shouldn't be in the business of ratifying these things - though > we could make statements of the form "MARC relator X refines DCMES element > Y" ? Yes! This suggestion i like very much. rs > > > > Certainly if C) involves inventing a new element set it should be > > > ruled out of scope of DCMI. > > > > Out of scope for The Dublin Core, yes. But inventing a new element set > > is not out of scope of the DCMI mission defined in Ottawa. Whether it > > is a good idea to do this (as opposed to pointing to existing work > > elsewhere) is a different question. > > OK, I stand corrected (though I don't say I'm overly in favour of such a > wide mission). What I should have said was, it seems inappropriate, to > me, for DCMI to expend effort developing a core standard for describing > people. > > In any case, it is probably inappropriate for me to make such statements > here... the usage board is not the place to discuss what it is sensible or > not for working groups to consider. Apologies. > > Andy > -- > Distributed Systems and Services > UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK [log in to unmask] > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell Voice: +44 1225 323933 > Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/ Fax: +44 1225 826838 >