Print

---

I understand that the position is that the data model should accommodate
semantic requirements, and that we are in any case moving to a point of
departure for DCQ not the final destination, so to speak. I would support
the idea of a vote plus wording.

Matt

> I would like to propose that we now vote on the Role
> qualifier. The proposed wording is below. Please note 
> that the examples look the same but the difference is in
> the definition of the Option. 
> 
> Is this OK? If not, please propose new wording.
> 
> (Please note - this is NOT a vote yet)
> 
> Cheers... Renato
> 
> ----START-VOTE
> 
> Option A
> --------
> 
> A Role qualifier that is based on values selected from
> an identified exisiting controlled vocabulary, including
> the ability to have uncontrolled values.
> 
> For example: Role = "Actor"
>              Vocab = "MARC-Relator"
> 
>              Role = "Dishwasher"
>              Vocab = ""
> 
> 
> Option B
> --------
> 
> A Role qualifier that is based on a set of values defined
> by and maintained by DCMI, including the ability to have
> uncontrolled values.
> 
> For example: Role = "Actor"
>              Vocab = "DCMI-ROLE1"
> 
>              Role = "Dishwasher"
>              Vocab = ""
> 
> 
> 
> Option C - There should not be a Role Qualifier
> --------
> 
> Option D - Abstain
> --------
> 
> ---END VOTE
> 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%