JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-AGENTS Archives


DC-AGENTS Archives

DC-AGENTS Archives


DC-AGENTS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-AGENTS Home

DC-AGENTS Home

DC-AGENTS  November 1999

DC-AGENTS November 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Role (Relator Terms/Codes)

From:

Renato Iannella <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Renato Iannella <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:55:23 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)



--On 5/11/99 2:16 PM -0500 James Weinheimer wrote:

> I  never heard that the Agent proposal was agreed to. In fact, at DC-7, I
> thought the understanding was quite the opposite. It was tabled--but
> perhaps I was mistaken.

The "Secret Agent" proposal is out-of-scope. We need to deal
with the 3 elements (Creator, Contributor, Publisher).

> Still, if we allow DC.Creator.Publisher (or whatever form it takes) how
> do we distinguish this from DC.Publisher? This is highly confusing to me
> and doubtless to others.

We can make a recommendation that some of the terms in the Relator list
(eg Publisher) should not be used for some elements (eg Creator).
And, that the Relator list should not be used for the Publisher element.
(even though the Publisher element will still have a Role qualifier)

Comments?

> It is my understanding that anyone can do anything they
> wish--implementors can set up their own lists, but they can't say it's
> DC. They can always go outside the format. But then, we are saying: if
> you want to specify role, you can't do it in DC, or, many times you can
> only do it very inexactly.

No, we are saying that there is a Role qualifier for the agent elements.
And, that *one* possible list of terms is the USMARC Relator list.
Others will come up with their own list or other lists..

> I guess we have a serious disagreement on this point. It should be
> precisely our goal to control the *format*, but not the information that
> goes inside the format. Various communities can define each DC field in
> different ways, although always adhering to the basic definitions.
> If we don't control the format, then I don't know who does.

Jim, I don't understand what you mean by "format" here?
We are defining a Role qualifier - which users can put what
ever values they like - plus one list of terms that maybe useful.


Cheers... Renato
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dr Renato Iannella           ->  http://purl.net/net/renato
Principal Research Scientist ->  http://www.dstc.edu.au/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         .....Computers Only Know Two Things.....


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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2010
December 2009
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
April 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
September 2006
August 2006
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
March 2005
July 2004
June 2004
March 2004
February 2004
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
February 2003
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
May 2002
April 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
July 2001
June 2001
December 2000
November 2000
May 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager