 |
 |
Jon The Prolific writes, concerning CREATOR vs AUTHOR: > We just need to agree on one once and for > all and *_then_stick_to_it_*. The Image meta folk were pretty committed to changing this. I think the reasons for doing so are compelling. and, concerning DESCRIPTION: > I still prefered Subject myself; Description doesn't really convey things > like LCSH and MeSH terms that might appear in this Element. My impression from last month's discussion is that DESCRIPTION is the more general term, and has broader support here. It includes SUBJECT, but SUBJECT does not as readily embrace the distinctions among the Virual Resource community between SUBJECT and CONTENT. > > * OTHER AGENT (CONTRIBUTOR?) > > > > The person(s) > ...and/or organisation(s)... My sense is that CREATOR and CONTRIBUTOR generally will be individuals, whereas PUBLISHER will typically be an organization. I'm not unalterably wedded to this position... is it too simplistic to hold up? and on DATE: > Well, I've had five ideas/suggestions from people for schemes for my > qualifiers list for this element so far: [...] > * FGDC > Date conforms to the date formats described in the FGDC. For > example 19960831. The nice thing about this one is that it is simple and it collates numerically. RFC-822 dating is more complex to parse, but since its so common, maybe this is not a problem. Anyone else...? > OK, I'll go along with the consensus on the naming of this one. My > contribution to the consensus building on the enumerated list of genres is > available at > <URL:http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-ObjectTypes.html>; these were > based on BibTex genre types plus some additions from other DCers. sounds good to me... we'll link this in stu