[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] dc elements
Fine by me! Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Nicholas [mailto:opoudjis@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nick > Nicholas > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:17 PM > To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [search-ws] dc elements > > > On 18/04/2009, at 00:21, LeVan,Ralph wrote: > > > I'm strongly in favor of updating our document to reflect the > > semantics > > of these new elements. > > I disagree. These elements are DC Collections Application Profile; the > original 15 remain the original 15 for Dublin Core. The fact that > http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml > gives semantics for both DC Core and DC Collections shouldn't mean > the DC context set should cover both. (After all, why not include all > the other terms in http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ ?) > > It makes more sense to stick with the 15 in a DC Core profile, minimal > and interoperable. Define these other terms in a distinct DC > Collections context set, and keep the reference as normative only for > the 15 in the DC Core context set. (The reference happens to apply to > both context sets, but I don't see why this is a problem --- there's > no overlap.) > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] > >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:31 AM > >> To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: [search-ws] dc elements > >> > >> In the process of incorporating the DC context set into the CQL > >> document I > >> have run across this question. > >> > >> The DC context set > >> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/dc-context-set.html) > > refers > >> to > >> http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml for > >> semantics > >> for the indexes. > >> > >> However, that now has added several elements beyond the original 15: > >> it has added: audience, provinance, rightsHolder, > >> instructionalMethod, > >> accrualMethod, accrualPeriodicity, accrualPolicy > >> > >> Should we revise the DC set to add these elements, or stick with the > > 15 > >> and > >> eliminate this reference? My preference is the latter. > >> > >> --Ray > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ > >> my_workgroups.php > >> > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > > https://www.oasis- > open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > > ^ > ^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^ > Dr Nick Nicholas; Link Affiliates, opoudjis@optushome.com.au > Melbourne skype:opoudjis http://www.opoudjis.net > "Despite millions of dollars of research, death continues to be this > nation's number one killer." --- Henry Gibson, Kentucky Fried Movie. > _______________________________________________________________________ > ___ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]