Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

>>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.
>
> 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. It never could
> have been, if it stayed at 15 elements, and so it has been proper for us to
> speak of a generic CQL index set, for example for "audience" (before we knew
> it was a DC element, which for me was today).   However it's not clear at
> all (to me) how aggressively DC plans to add generic elements.
>
> So let's say we have a candidate generic element that's not yet in DC.  Do
> we
> (1) lobby DC to add it; or
> (2) put it in a temporary generic set and depricate it if and when it's
> added to DC?
>
> Please, anyone who advocates (1)  share with us how to go about doing that.
>
> --Ray

I guess I would advocate 1 and 2  :)

There are a number of more or less active working groups within the DC
community, http://www.dublincore.org/groups/.  It is my understanding
that most, if not all, of the proposals for new elements, refinements,
or encodings emerge from these working groups.  I suppose if a new
generic-looking term comes up for use in CQL, the first place to look
for a DC equivalent would be in the work of these groups.  If you can't
find anything, pick a group and make a proposal, or even propose a new
group.

Although, I should say my observation is that the DC wheels turn rather
slowly, and the powers in charge take a pretty conservative stand when
considering new additions, which is I suppose why I would suggest a
combination of 1 and 2.

Tom