At this point in time, the organisation I'm working with is *trying* to
keep the DC.TYPE field to the list published by Roy.
However, we've had a couple of really vague documents coming
through, which aren't quite text.promotion or text.pamphlet or
Perhaps we can further develop the "strucuralist" list here?
Alternatives could also be a defined list for use within your own
organisation - as my company is doing for a couple of Intranet sites.
The main reason for a "private enumeration" (to coin a phrase) is
that we deal with a very narrow set of documents, according to the
list published by Roy - so rather than using three or four-level names
like text.techreport.fault.report and text.techreport.fault.repair, we
have our own names like tech.fault and tech.repair (I'm just making
these up for examples).
Jane Rundquist wrote:
> I am interested in the status of the enumerated list approach for the DC
> element "Type". The "Syntax" paper on it says that "For the sake
> of interoperability, Type should be selected from an enumerated
> list that is currently under development in the workshop series" ...