> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:46:34 -0500
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > 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.
> Yes, I can't imagine anyone will be bothered if we do this.
Riiighht ... I guess.
> This does raise a complication. We've assumed for years (10 now)
> that DC is 15 elements forever.
> Now it seems (if I understand correctly) that it is going to
> accomodate generic elements we've been talking about, which raises
> the possibility that DC is the generic set we're discussing.
Yes. And somehow that makes me ... uncomfortable. I've been
cheerfully talking about "the fifteen DC elements" for a long time
now, and that fact that suddenly I can't do that any more is
disquieting. I hope the DC people aren't making a horrible mistake
here, but I fear they are. I've always felt that the great strength
of DC has been that you can just say "Here are the fifteen elements,
look, just write them down, off you go." If they've broken that, then
they might lose a lof of their attractively consistent simplicitly.
Still and all -- if "audience" is now one of the fifteen (er,
eighteen) DC elements, we should feel free to add it to the DC CQL
context set. The fact that the DCMI has the audience _data element_
in a different XML namespace from title, creator etc. by no means
implies that we need to put our CQL index in a different context set
from the old ones.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with
more expected" -- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition,
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio