> Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:52:25 -0400
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
> My problem with calling this DC is that we aren't the DCMI (although
> I sit right next to them) and it isn't our standard to be defining.
> They have avoided the issue of searching and I don't want to be the
> one to force it on them. So, I really think we should call it XD.
Well, Ralph, you're the one who has to sit next to the DCMI all day,
so I defer to you; but really, it's hard for me to see how, if we put
up an "element set" (for searching) identical to their existing
"element set" (for content description), they could object to our
naming our set after theirs!
To say that the DCMI have "avoided the issue of searching", while
technically true, strikes me as avoiding the issue of whether they've
avoided the issue of searching :-) Whether the DCMI people have
explicitly specified what DC searching means or not, the fact is that
people all over the world routinely do what, to all intents and
purposes, are DC searches; and that's what they call them. I don't
think we serve anyone by making people use a new and different acronym
for something they already understand.
Otherwise we'll get into this sort of discussion:
Punter: How do I do a Dublin Core title search in SRW?
SRW-Meister: Well, you can't. Not exactly.
SRW-Meister: You can search for Cross Domain title.
Punter: Is that the same as Dublin Core title?
SRW-Meister: Sort of. Maybe. Not really. Well, yes.
Punter: So what's the difference?
SRW-Meister: Oh look! A badger!
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "So we don't have to do anything except just stop him entering
the room?" -- Monty Python.