If we do, do we give it a new version, and if so 1.2 or 2.0 (currently 1.1)?
Related question: should we include an annex for the DC schema? (And then
the same question applies about the new elements.)
--Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <>;
<>
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: [search-ws] dc elements
I'm strongly in favor of updating our document to reflect the semantics
of these new elements.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: [search-ws] dc elements
>
> In the process of incorporating the DC context set into the CQL
> document I
> have run across this question.
>
> The DC context set
> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/resources/dc-context-set.html)
refers
> to
> http://dublincore.org/documents/usageguide/elements.shtml for
> semantics
> for the indexes.
>
> However, that now has added several elements beyond the original 15:
> it has added: audience, provinance, rightsHolder, instructionalMethod,
> accrualMethod, accrualPeriodicity, accrualPolicy
>
> Should we revise the DC set to add these elements, or stick with the
15
> and
> eliminate this reference? My preference is the latter.
>
> --Ray
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
