I've been following the Role debate on the DC-Agents list and am
intending to vote for Option A (below) on the assumption that
"MARC-relator" is only an example of one controlled vocabulary that
could be used as a value qualifier. This, as I understand it, would
be in line with other WG's proposals (e.g. the subdesc WG proposes a
Descriptor qualifier for Subject with terms taken from schemes such
as LCSH, DDC, Mesh etc.)
If it is the case that "MARC-relator" is only an example I am a little
uncertain why it cannot co-exist with Option B which proposes a DC
defined and maintained list of role values.
In both cases "Role" appears to be needed to qualify the Agent
element - the option of voting for the role itself as the qualifier
e.g. DC.Agent = illustrator, scheme = DCMI is not offered. Have I
missed something?
Regards,
Robina
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Role vote
Author: "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date: 07/12/1999 09:47
Could we consider the issues surrounding the current vote being taken in
the DC-Agents WG on role? Much discussion has occurred about whether Role
should be a qualifier with a value specifying the role versus whether the
roles themselves should be the qualifiers (perhaps from a controlled list
but not limited to this).
Below is the vote form.
Any opinions? Can we come to any consensus on this list? Please include
reasons. (of course we can all go read the archives from the agents list;
so please keep your messages concise and point to any already existing
messages from that list if necessary).
Rebecca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:48:28 GMT
From: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Digest of dc-agents - volume 1 #97
Subjects of messages in this digest:
Role Pre-Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:31:38 +1000 (EST)
From: Renato Iannella <[log in to unmask]>
To: DC Agents WG <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Role Pre-Vote
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
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
------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
