Dr Robert Sanderson wrote:

>>> So, Tom, could you clarify? (I'm not a DC expert, Rebecca Guenther is
>>> here
>>> in our office and I go to her with questions, but she's off to ALA.)
>>> So this means that DC isn't 15 elements, but now it's 18 (and growing)?
>
>
>> That is correct.  The DC base elements (elements that are not just
>> refinements of existing elements) has been slowly growing.  In addition
>> to the original 15, there are now audience, provenance, and
>> rightsHolder.
>
>
> So it would be within our rights to add these to the dc context set, and
> no one would look at us strangely?
>
> If this wouldn't cause people to get up in arms, I suggest we do it right
> now.
>

I think adding these new elements would be a good thing.  However, there
might be one issue:

The original 15 elements are in a different "namespace" (whatever that
really means?) than the new elements.

The original 15 are in the 'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/' namespace;
whereas, the new elements are in the 'http://purl.org/dc/terms/' namespace.

 From the perspective of CQL, does this matter?  I don't know.

It might actually be useful to have a comprehensive DC Context Set that
includes all DC elements, refinement elements, and encoding schemes (as
appropriate), with the understanding that as new DC elements are
approved they will be included in this context set.

Tom