innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

DCMI Usage Board Decisions

  Votes by http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting 

  <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0">
    <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#669999" height="32"> </td>
        <td width="88%" bgcolor="#669999" height="32">

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

 
 
Active Votes
Closed Votes
Preferences
Logout
Manual
Policy
 

  <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" width="100%" border="0">
    <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

  <td bgcolor="#99cccc"><font size="4"><b>Proposed Qualifiers: Creator, Contributor, Publisher (2000-04-01) 
    </b></font></td>
      <td width="2%" bgcolor="#99cccc"> </td>

Result

Result of the Vote "Proposed Qualifiers: Creator, Contributor, Publisher (2000-04-01)", generated at 4/15/00 7:00 PM.
Number of votes cast: 21

  <p>1. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Editor 
  </p>

Label: Editor
Name: editor
Definition: An agent who prepares for publication a work not primarily his/her own, such as by elucidating text, adding introductory or other critical matter, or technically directing an editorial staff.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Reject 10
Approve 8


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Reject

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject The appropriate way to deal with Role qualifiers, I believe is to point to a scheme for refinement. This approach qualifies CCP along a dimension that is not productive and is too limited to meet the needs of non-bibliographic communities.
Priscilla Caplan Approve I feel the best way to handle roles such as "editor" is to define a qualifier called "Role" and allowable value encodings such as "MARC Relator Codes", as proposed by the Agent WG. I also feel that, procedurally, the proposal of the Agent WG should have been presented in the ballot. So I am tempted to vote against this qualifier. However, having discussed this issue endlessly in the Usage committee, I realize that if half of us reject this approach in favor of "Role", the other half will reject "Role" in favor of this. So I am approving this, in the simple hope we can approve SOMETHING.
Diane Hillmann abstain While I sympathize with those who want us to do SOMETHING, I don't think this is going to make anyone happy. It sure doesn't make me happy. But I've said my piece, and though this approach is perhaps the lesser of the available evils, I still can't vote for it.
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Reject  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject Name=editor is proposed as refinement of contributor also. Thus it doesn't dumb down.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject It seems better to publish no qualifiers for the "agent" elements given that the group cannot agree on an approach to these yet. I will therefore vote against all suggested.
Stuart Sutton Reject I agree with Priscilla's assessment and prefer a "role" element qualifier making possible value qualifiers that meet the needs of discourse and practice communities. However, I am taking a different course of action and rejecting.
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject I would support 3 qualifiers: role, person, organization. I hve no idea where these proposals came from.
eric miller Approve I accept the expertise of the dc-libraries group in proposing this set of qualifiers, recognizing of course this is clearly not an exclusive set.
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name coflict to 'Contributor':Editor. I'm assuming that the namespace for all of the DC qualifiers is the same, say "DCq". Then, the concatenated name of this qualifier is "DCq:editor" which is exactly the same as that of the "'Contributor':Editor". This name conflict damages dumb-down-ability. If namespaces for 'Author/Creator' and 'Contributor' are distinct, I approve this qualifier.
Warwick Cathro Reject Like a number of others, I would much prefer the use of a Role qualifier with standard scheme(s) such as the MARC Relator Code scheme. So I am going to vote to Reject all of these proposals.

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>2. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Performer 
  </p>

Label: Performer
Name: performer
Definition: An agent who exhibits musical or acting skills in a musical or dramatic presentation or entertainment.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 9
Reject 9


Abstain: 3

Choices with highest scores:

    Approve
    Reject

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject Name=performer is proposed as refinement of contributor also. Thus it doesn't dumb down.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name coflict to 'Contributor':Performer
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>3. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Adaptor 
  </p>

Label: Adaptor
Name: adapter
Definition: An agent who reworks a resource usually for a different medium
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Reject 10
Approve 8


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Reject

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Reject  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject Name=adapter is proposed as refinement of contributor also. Thus it doesn't dumb down.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name conflict to 'Contributor':Adaptor
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>4. <b>Question: </b>Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Editor 
  </p>

Label: Editor
Name: editor
Definition: An agent who prepares for publication a work not primarily his/her own, such as by elucidating text, adding introductory or other critical matter, or technically directing an editorial staff.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 10
Reject 8


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject see 1.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name conflict to 'Author/Creator':Editor
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>5. <b>Question: </b>Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Sponsor 
  </p>

Label: Sponsor
Name: sponsor
Definition: An agent that issued a contract or under the auspices of which a work has been written, printed, published, etc.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 12
Reject 7


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>6. <b>Question: </b>Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Translator 
  </p>

Label: Translator
Name: translator
Definition: An agent who renders a text from one language into another, or from an older form of a language into the modern form.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 12
Reject 7


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>7. <b>Question: </b>Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Performer 
  </p>

Label: Performer
Name: performer
Definition: An agent who exhibits musical or acting skills in a musical or dramatic presentation or entertainment.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 10
Reject 8


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject see 2.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name conflict to 'Author/Creator':Performer
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>8. <b>Question: </b>Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Adaptor 
  </p>

Label: Adaptor
Name: adapter
Definition: An agent who reworks a resource usually for a different medium
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 10
Reject 8


Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Approve  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Approve  
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Reject see 3.
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto abstain Name conflict to 'Author/Creator':Adaptor
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>9. <b>Question: </b>Qualifier for 'Publisher': Distributor 
  </p>

Label: Distributor
Name: distributor
Definition: An agent or agency that has exclusive or shared marketing rights for an item.
Type: Element Refinement

  <p>type: single selection 
  </p>

Answer Points
Approve 10
Reject 9


Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter Vote Voter's comment
Simon Cox Reject  
Renato Iannella Reject This qualifier was not proposed by the Agents WG. Since we are rejecting the Agent WG proposal, we should reject ALL qualifiers for CCP elements. This will give the new WG a clean slate to work with to propose a new TOTAL solution.
Jon Mason abstain The definition reads well & my inclination initially is to approve this qualifier. However, the politics that has ensued & consumed much time on the DC-Usage discussion list has partly confused me. So, given that I probably don't fully appreciate all the issues I'm abstaining.
David Bearman Reject  
Priscilla Caplan Approve Please see my comment under Editor.
Diane Hillmann abstain  
Stuart Weibel Approve  
Andy Powell Approve  
Makx Dekkers Reject Not the right way to handle rights.
Leif Andresen Approve  
Roland Schwaenzl Approve  
Tom Baker Approve  
Rebecca Guenther Approve  
Eric Childress Reject  
Stuart Sutton Reject See my response under 'editor' under author/creator ...
Sigfrid Lundberg Reject  
Erik Jul Approve  
Rachel Heery Reject  
eric miller Approve  
Shigeo Sugimoto Approve  
Warwick Cathro Reject  

  <p>
  </p>

  <p>
  </p>

 

Contact András Micsik if you have problems with voting.
© MTA SZTAKI DSD  

  <p></p>