Technical Committee

Hi Leg SC,

I have read John’s document, which he shared on our last Skype call. I think it is very well written and formatted. The substance is clear and sensible to me. If we decide to work from this document, I can certainly add U.S. examples with URIs authored by the Superintendent of Documents and by the House Committee on the U.S. Code—the two publishing entities for U.S. federal Legislation.

I have also read the Technical Subcommittees Fundamental Requirements. I find specifically interesting the Tech SC’s approach to FRBR compared to John’s suggestion to really think whether FRBR adds anything. Perhaps this is a discussion for the Main TC.

For our work, I think it is important to note that the Technical SC expects:

“The most important task of every subcommittee is therefore to provide a full list of features that characterize and further describe each document from which the SC is responsible, and also to search for implicit features that are not present in the citations but that are relevant for the recreation of the formal context, country and jurisdiction being important ones.”

Speak to you all tomorrow.

Best,

Melanie Knapp

Head of Reference and Instructional Services

George Mason University Law Library

3301 Fairfax Drive, MSN 1G1

Arlington, VA 22201-4426

Tel: (703) 993-8111

Web: http://www.law.gmu.edu/library

Blog: http://blog.law.gmu.edu/library/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masonlawlibrary

Twitter: https://twitter.com/GMULawLibrary

legalcitem-legislation message