 |
 |
I had this thought, if the subject element can have a 'scheme' to show if LCSH, or Sears or MeSH or whatever was used, then why can't the name element has a 'scheme' to show the role of the party being named. Paula Browning [log in to unmask] Student--University of Oklahoma, School of Library and Information Studies Assistant--Bizzell Library, Reference Dept. University of Oklahoma "These are my personal views and not those of the University of Oklahoma, OU-SLIS, or Bizzell Library." "Smith, Allison" <[log in to unmask]> wrote-- 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? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%