> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:55:33 +0100
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
> The opposite of having a theo context set is not having a theo
> context set.
I can't argue with that! :-)
> The reason for my proposal was just that I would prefer to relate a
> context set to the organisation that is responsible for its
Yup. That would be you.
> It looked to me that the SRU/W group could take responsibility for
> the combination of current core index names from dc, dcterms and
> bath and that we could leave application specific context sets to
> other organisations.
But since you seem to be the only person who wants the Big Squashed
Flat context set, you would be the ideal maintenance agency!
Seriously, behind the unnecessarily snide stabs, there is an important
point: we designed not only CQL but the maintenance procedures and
culture that surround it precisely in order to give people autonomy to
do this kind of thing -- where by "this kind of thing", I mean things
that the core committee disapproves of, but that someone somewhere
really wants for good and adequate reasons of their own.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "It's nice to get stabbed in the front for a change" --
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio