Peter, I think you're conflating 2 rules: the agent:e-mail address
controversy belongs to the Canberra Qualifiers rule (which is what it
might be construed as violating, but not as badly as agent:mailing
address would). I don't think this topic actually has anything to do
with the 1:1 rule (which I *do* want to blow off, but that's another
issue).
Tell me if I'm wrong.
--Robin
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Now that we've segued to an important but completely different topic (the
> form that names should take vs. an implied approval for blowing off the 1:1
> rule when it comes to fields like agent:e-mail-address). I'll resubmit the
> original point:
>
> I wrote:
>
> > I am concerned however, that by just listing qualifiers like e-mail,
> > we're tacitly encouraging people to take the "less perfect" road.
> >
> > I move that we put very clear disclaimers and explanations both
> > in the qualifier listings and in the best practice document that
> > Diane is working on to indicate that the preferred implementation
> > approach is to "rationalize" metadata, time and funding permitted.
>
>
>
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|