> The nitty-gritty of Usage-Board-specific terms need not concern
> this list. However, it would be very helpful to hear arguments
> for or against declaring Usage-Board-specific terms (such as
> the above) as opposed to using existing terms from DC or RDF
> (as Harry advocates) -- even in cases where existing terms
> may be defined quite broadly or generically.
I agree with Roland that the nitty-gritty IS relevant to the entire
DC community - anything "endorsed" by the DCMI will become a
model that others will copy.
Ideally any dcu namespace terms would be defined "genericly"
enough that others could re-use them for their local applications.
I am currently looking at defining Application Profiles in machine-readable
format (rather than Word Processing documents!) , so if the UB
comes up with a good set of elements I'd definitely use them.
(I haven't had a chance to look through your strawman yet.)
National Library of New Zealand