 |
 |
Peter, I don't like my first idea either (the one you quote below, and with a very valid comment). Basically, the idea was to create a "visual" sort of link between the Creator field, and the Role field (necessary when there are multiple Creators, Contributors, and Publishers for a single record, maintaining the link between Name and Role could get out of hand). This is why I suggested it this way: <DC.Name> Adams, Ansel <DC.Role> Ansel Adams, Creator I like my second idea much better (sent in another email): <DC.Name.1> Adams, Ansel <DC.Role.1> Creator This way, the link between the two pieces of data are embedded in the tag, making it unnecessary to make it visually apparent in the data (and causing redundancy). Does this make sense? ************************************************************ Allison A. Smith Retrospective Conversion Coordinator Chicago Historical Society 312 642-5035 ext. 398 [log in to unmask] Check out the Chicago Historical Society's website: http://www.chicagohistory.org ************************************************************ > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 5:30 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: agent types > > > I'm inclined to agree with Jim - although - I don't think anyone is > necessarily suggesting doing away with _some_ representation that would > allow us to indicate and discover based on publisher, you just might have > to frame your query as "Give me resources where agent=Macmillan and > role=Publisher". I will say that I object in principle to any syntax that > would even vaguely resemble: > > <DC.Name> Adams, Ansel > <DC.Role> Ansel Adams, Creator > Primarily because it's carries with it all the problems that accrue to > redundant data. > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%