 |
 |
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Stu Weibel wrote: > Jon The Prolific writes, > > > Do I understand you right that the DC elements we have on 15th December > > are _the_ DC elements for this version and we can move onto > > implementation, etc? If so, then that's great! This discussion has gone > > on for months now and its time to nail it down and move on. > > No, what I meant was that what I posted *yesterday* represents canon law > UNLESS some band of renegades out there shows ample evidence that theirs > is the true consensus. > > In EITHER case, what gets sealed on the 15th (more likely close of business > on the 12, cuz I'm travelling the 13th) is it. And yes, we move on to > implementation. > > stu > What you posted on Wed. included the following: > > 3 Description Label: DESCRIPTION > > The topic of the resource, or keywords that describe the subject > or content of the resource, whether text-based or visual. > Applications of this element might well include scheme-qualified > classification data (for example, Library of Congress > Classification Numbers or Dewey Decimal numbers). > There's obviously been much discussion about this one. Will this be changed as suggested to: DESCRIPTION: to include an abstract, textual description of the resource and SUBJECT: to include keywords that describe the subject or content of the resource, including scheme-qualified classification data I just want to verify that what you included on Wed. is no longer "canon law". I interpreted the recent flurry of messages about this as general consensus to change as above. Rebecca ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^ ^^ Senior MARC Standards Specialist ^^ ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^ ^^ Library of Congress ^^ ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4020 ^^ ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^ ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^