For what it's worth, Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules and the MARC
format include the provision "audience" with a note on intended audience
(AACR 1.7B14, etc.) and a "fixed field" code and a note field for
"target audience" (MARC 21 in 008/22 for most formats and tag 521,
respectively). It is used for more situations than just children's
books. - bt
Dr. Barbara B. Tillett, Ph.D.
Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20540-4305
**Please do not send mail to LC via the regular post.
All US Postal Service mail to the Library
was suspended effective October 17, 2001
and there is no date yet for when it will resume.
Please let me know if you want my home
tel.: + (202) 707-4714
fax: + (202) 707-6629
email: [log in to unmask]
>>> Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> 02/09/02 03:25AM >>>
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Rachel Heery wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> > The Usage Board announces the availability for review and public
> > comment of a proposal for a new Audience element qualifier
> > to the Board by the DC-Education Working Group. The text of the
> > proposal can be reached from the "News" link on the DC-Education
> > Working Group page at http://www.dublincore.org/groups/education/.
> I think it would be useful to accompany this recommendation with an
> associated DCMI document which explains the way in which 'domain
> terms are distinguished from other DCMI elements and qualifiers. Are
> distinguished in any machine readable way? What exactly does 'domain
> specific element qualifier status' mean?
> It would be helpful to clarify what practical distinction there is
> between domain specific terms (elements and qualifiers) and other
Section 4.6 of 'Usage Board Administrative Process'
makes the following distinctions:
--- cut ---
4.6. Categories of recommendation
4.6.1. CROSS-DOMAIN. Terms of general use and broad interest across
4.6.2. DOMAIN-SPECIFIC. Terms of interest to a limited domain or set
4.6.3. OBSOLETE. For terms that have been superseded, deprecated, or
rendered obsolete. Such terms will remain in the registry for use in
interpreting legacy metadata.
--- cut ---
Terms can move between these categories during their life, e.g.
domain-specific -> cross-domain -> obsolete - hopefull the last step
happen too fast or too often! :-)
I don't think there's any agreement about how to represent this in a
machine-readable way. Given that we think it is sensible to put this
information in a human-readable document (recommendation), my personal
opinion is that we also need to find a way to put it in a
document (e.g. we need to be able to encode this information in an RDF
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/