I agree.
Theo

>>> [log in to unmask] 16-05-02 16:46 >>>
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:21:47 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> We need to have a dc prefix, forthe 15 dc elements, with dc
> semantics.
>
> Whether or not we need in addition an un-prefixed list should be
> argued based on the above premise. What would it consist of?
> Obviously, it wouldn't simply be the 15 dc elements with dc
> semantics again.  What then?  Would it be the 15 dc element names
> with semantics even more ambiguous than dc?  What would be the
> point?

OK, last try at this subject.  Then I promise to shut up and let you
decide amongst yourselves.

Suppose you're writing a server.  A client sends a search against a
CQL prefix "title".  Now your back-end configuration doesn't know
anything about that prefix.  All it knows about is "bib.title" and
"heraldry.title".  So what does it do?  Well, it could just fault the
search: that's perfectly legitimate but doesn't strike me as very
helpful.  If you want to make life nice for the poor user (or the poor
multi-casting search gateway) you'll guess that it probably meant
bib.title and go ahead on that basis.

My suggestion is simply this: that we gently encourage servers which
want to be useful to do so by using DC-like semantics for unqualifed
prefixes that it doesn't have its own meaning for.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk 
)_v__/\  Live fast, Die old.