 |
 |
At 01:09 PM 12/7/99 +1000, you wrote: > >The DC Agents WG is pleased to release an update to the Working Draft >for Creator/Contributor/Publisher element qualifiers: > >??http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-agents/files/wd-agent-qual.html > >Comments and feedback are welcome (please see the Status section of >the WD for instructions). > >The DC Agents WG will release the final version on 10th December 1999. Most of these comments are editorial (though I may inadvertently trip over issues that came up before I joined this list)... Section 1, para 1 -- Can we use the term "Dublin Core Metadata Element Set" instead of "Dublin Core Element Set". 2.1. Agent type. Definition. I find "Indicates the class of the named Agent" to be wholly useless as a definition, since "class" could be anything -- there's no way to figure out what Type is without knowing the value qualifiers. I would prefer something like "Indicates what type of entity the named Agent is." This is not a whole lot better, but some. 2.1. Comment. "Other terms may be [not maybe] used but are [not is] not recommended." 2.1. Associated value qualifiers: -- Instead of the phrase "acts as an entity", could we use "acts as an agent"? Isn't that what we're really saying? -- Organization. "A group that [not that that] acts as ..." -- Object. needs end period 2.4. Agent role. -- "Such lists [not list] of terms..." -- "Some schemes may contain values..." Could we call these "vocabularies" not "schemes"? We're using the term "vocabularies" throughout -- having the different word "schemes" here makes me wonder if it refers to something other than a vocabulary. 2.5. Agent Identifier. -- Definition. "An unambiguous reference to the named [not name] Agent." -- Associated value qualifiers. "The ... URI ... should be used to [not for the] encode the value. p %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%