>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997 17:09:38 -0600, "Ron Daniel Jr." <[log in to unmask]> said:
At 06:13 PM 9/23/97 -0400, khsu wrote:
> why not just repeat the Creator element
>with appropriate qualifiers for any additional contributors and combine
>the two elements into one Creator/Contributor element?
I never liked the Creater/Contributor split (was 'Agent') but it
I guess I can understand the reasoning that it is better understand
by DC users.
Ron> Has anyone actually *used* the Contributor element yet? In
Ron> trying to create examples of its use for the RDF working group,
Ron> I've just noticed that trying to define the role of a
Ron> contributor is a bit awkward. The "scheme" qualifer could be
Ron> used to say <contributor scheme="illustrator">Chris
Ron> Smith</creator> except that it should really be used for things
Ron> like "AACR2" which defines a whole bunch of potential types of
Ron> contributors. We used to have the "role" qualifier to handle
Ron> exactly this problem, but that got thrown out a long time ago.
Ron> Recommendations?
I think the reasoning for throwing out the role is that it was a
refinement of contributor i.e. a sub-structure so it would be
Element: contributor.illustrator
Value: Chris Smith
and any further qualifiers (Scheme, Language) as appropriate.
If the sub-element structure ('minimalist') wanted to look at it, it
would be still clear that Chris Smith was a contributor.
Dave
