Print

Print


I am thrilled with this response!

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 10:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DC Index definitions


"LeVan,Ralph" wrote:

Well, I'm not thrilled with the Bib-1 version of title mapping to 1097
instead of 4.  But, I realize that the ZIG added the DC Use attributes for a
reason and this is as good as reason to use them as any.

Since the proposed definition already specifies alternative mappings, I
wouldn't have a problem specifying three alternative (rather than two).  I
would have a problem including inappropriate mappings.

I propose to add a third alternatve for each of Title, Subject, and
Publisher, and leave the rest as two alternatives.   Please comment, and
soon.


In other words, for Title we could say it maps to one of the following three

1. bib-1 use 4  ....
2. bib-1 use 1097 ....
3. XD title......


But for creator, I would want to stay with the two proposed, and not try to
force a mapping of creator to author.


For subject, adding bib-1 use 21 would be ok.


But for description I wouldn't want to force a mapping to abstract.


For publisher,      bib-1 Use attribute 1018 is fine.


For Contributor, Date, Resource Type, Format, Identifier, Source, Language,
Relation, and Coverage, there are no appropriate bib-1 alternatives.