Theo van Veen writes:
 > We (KB, European Library) are using the name DCX already for 5
 > years for DC plus "arbitrary" metadata elements. So I have strong
 > objections against using this name for DC+RMD. My proposal for a
 > name for DC plus record metadata would be DC_REC, DC_RMD, DC_R, DCR
 > or DC+REC or whatever but no DCX. I have been discussing the
 > concept of the DCX recordschema already 5 years ago on this list. I
 > would not consider it appropriate to use exactly that name for a
 > new recordSchema.

Just this once (don't faint :-) I have to agree wholeheartedly with
Theo.  If we're going to introduce a thing called DCX at all, it had
better be the same thing that's been using that name for the last
half-decade.

I agree with Ray that the proposed DC+RMD schema is potentially
useful, but it doesn't solve the problem that this thread is
addressing.  (Then again, I don't think that DCX solves it either, but
at least it's not designed in a way that explicitly prevents it from
solving it!)

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor    <[log in to unmask]>    http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "There's something Newtonian about paleontology: every conclusion
	 produces an equal and opposite conclusion" -- Brian M. McCarthy