[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [search-ws] dc elements
If we do, do we give it a new version, and if so 1.2 or 2.0 (currently 1.1)? Related question: should we include an annex for the DC schema? (And then the same question applies about the new elements.) --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>; <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:21 AM Subject: RE: [search-ws] dc elements I'm strongly in favor of updating our document to reflect the semantics of these new elements. Ralph > -----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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]