> No I think there's an easier solution short of distinguishing data from
> metadata.  It is reasonable to distinguish descriptive metadata from other
> metadata (administrative, technical, structural; and for simplicitly sake
> just call it all administrative+).
>
> We're really talking only about administrative+ metadata, aren't we?
> Descriptive metadata is irrelevant -- as far as srw is concerned, if it
> exists it's part of the content. I don't think it matters what the content
> of the record is, descriptive metadata, object, or both.
> So why not define an index set for administrative+ metadata -- "adm" ?  And

Why not call it rec, version 1.1? ;)
I think a handfull is a huge underestimate, but sure.

Rob


       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.  L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I