> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:45:12 -0500
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > I think we should not go down this route. When I want a brief
> > record or a full record I do not want something that is narrower
> > or broader than something for which I do not know how broad or
> > narrow it is.  If I am the only one for which this was an issue I
> > would say let's leave it as it was.
>
> If it would help, we could maintain information about relationships
> among schemas on the maintenance agency page (it wouldn't be
> machine-interpretable). I would be happy to support this activity if
> it would be useful.

That sounds like a really bad idea: work for a human to do in
maintaining it, and _then_ a computer can't use it.

Regarding all the RDF thoughts and related bits from earlier in this
thread, I tend to agree that we are in danger of over-engineering here
in the classic style.  It looks to me like the actual requirement is
handily met with a brief/full bit.  Ain't that so?

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "An object in orbit remains in orbit until it hits something"
         -- Bill Keel's law of orbital dynamics in the solar system

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/