When I first raised the question of using DC to describe non-networked
resources, I recieved a resounding negative response citing objections from
the museum community in particular.
When I asked a second time there were not only no negative responses, but
some positive ones. The existence of a "Physical Object" on Simon's most
recent list of types would apear that we have indeed relaxed the networked
resource restriction for using DC.
Are we ready to consider making this official?
From: dih1 on 07/28/98 12:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: Re: Resource Types off-line
I agree with Simon that there is no downside, really, and in fact the
library community was much in favor of this extension. USMARC, our legacy
standard, has in fact gone from the other direction--from physical objects
to virtual ones, with only a few stretch marks to show for it.
Diane
>[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>> What's the down side of letting DC point to off-line resources (i.e.
>> resources that aren't digitized)
>
>There is no real downside.
>Here's an extended example
>(based on data that I have to hand ...)
>
[snip Simon's lovely examples ...]
|