Why would we talk about the DC schema in the SRU document? Record
schemas are out-of-scope as far as I'm concerned.
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [search-ws] dc elements
>
> I'm working the DC context set into our CQL document (OASIS SWS) as a
> normative annex.
>
> So the question is whether to do likewise for the schema (into SRU,
not
> CQL).
>
> --Ray
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <>
> To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <>;
> <>
> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:34 AM
> Subject: RE: [search-ws] dc elements
>
>
> Since the extended version is backwards compatible with the previous,
> I'd recommend 1.2.
>
> An annex where?
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:26 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [search-ws] dc elements
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
