 |
 |
> > Looking at the problem from a DCMI maintenance point of view, > I would love to have a way to say: "Use any of these MARC > relator codes as refinements of dc:contributor. If you need to > make more specialized distinctions (such as commission-giver > versus contractor), here's how you can declare your own > list of refinements to either dc:contributor or dc:creator." > As I was saying to Roland, however, my preference would be > to keep the set of DCMI-maintained terms as flat as possible. > DCMI maintained terms - that i agree on. That doesn't stop us from declaring relations - nor applications to do so. > > If I'm not mistaken, Priscilla Caplan long ago said she found > the distinction between Creator and Contributor one of the > more difficult things to explain in user training. On the > other hand, it obviously is an important distinction or it > wouldn't have made it into the Core in the first place. hmmm...what's with dc:source ? > But if "importance" is the defining distinction between > Creator and Contributor (a major versus a minor role), IMO the amount of responsibility for contribution to content for a dc:contriutor is left unspecified in elements/1.1/. I wonder how you conclude a "minor" role from the elements/1.1/ definition. > > Alternatively, we could perhaps re-invent the notion of a > free-floating, adjective-like agentRole qualifier that could > in principle bind to any element, but I'd rather not go there. No! We certainly don't want that. rs > > Tom > > [1] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0209&L=dc-architecture&T=0&F=&S=&P=8087 > [2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0209&L=dc-architecture&D=0&T=0&P=8207 > > -- > Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask] > Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-171-408-5784 > Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027 > 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-1408 > >