>> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:39:27 -0500
>> From: Eliot Christian <[log in to unmask]>

>> Leaving aside for now the question of possibly unnecessary
>> redundancy, may I ask if anyone sees any other problems with the
>> GILS context set:

Mike Taylor wrote:

> So -- issues other than that.  Some of the new indexes you introduce
> are arguably applicable to a broader context than GILS: for example,
> "audience" is a useful cross-domain index that should perhaps have
> been included in DC.  Maybe we should have a CQL context set that
> contains such indexes?

Just as a point of information DC does define an audience term:

Actually there are currently several newer terms that have been
officially adopted by DC that perhaps should be added to CQL DC Context
Set, or maybe a new Extended DC Context Set.

Since I'm here I might as well weigh in on the proliferation of new
terms with the same meaning as existing terms:  Please avoid it where
ever possible and reuse existing index terms.

Kind regards,