> > Does the Registry application also need to know "Status"?
> > I believe you had considered using dc:relation
> > together with an identifier for a type of status (e.g.
> > http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/#recommended).
> > I was going to propose that the Usage Board declare a term
> > dcu:status for this purpose -- but not today!
> > It seems like "dc:title dc:relation http://...#recommended"
> > would work as a stopgap measure, though it is awfully vague.
> > Perhaps members of this list have a better suggestion?
> Being able to provide term status in the registry would be nice, but is not
> required. I would prefer to see 'hasStatus' added as a refinement to
> dc:relation than to define it as a generic relation, or as a term in the dcu
> (?) schema. Is this something the UB will consider? Also, can you
> elaborate on what the dcu schema is and what it will define? Thanks.
If some working group is in consense to propose "hasStatus" as a refinement to
"dc:relation" it may propose this - with the documentation needed for that
- to dc:usage
dcu is supposed to work as a convenience vocabulary by the usage board.
am i correct, dcu is NOT under the dcmi-namespace recommendation?
> Regards... harry