Votes by http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting        Active Votes Closed Votes Preferences Logout Manual Policy

Result

1. Question: Qualifier for 'Description': Table Of Contents

	Label:	Table Of Contents
	Name:	tableOfContents
	Definition:	A list of subunits of the content of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	22
Reject	2

Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Reject	TOC is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason	Reject
David Bearman	Approve	A perfectly legitimate refinement which dumbs down despite what Ren says
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve	It is certainly useful to know whether a Description contains a TOC or an Abstract.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve	refines dc:description - would be a candidate for a useful dc:type as a genre of text.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

2. Question: Qualifier for 'Description': Release

	Label:	Release
	Name:	release
	Definition:	An identification of the edition, release or version of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	11
Reject	11

Abstain: 2

Choices with highest scores:

Approve
Reject

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Reject	"Release" is part of the identifier.
Renato Iannella	Reject	Not a refinement of the Description element
Jon Mason	abstain
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve	See again: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-02/0055.html
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Reject
Juha Hakala	Reject	Does not refine Description element. We use a local element "Version" for specifying version information.
Diane Hillmann	Reject	Release information can certainly be included here, but I think it's stretching to considered it as a refinement.
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Reject
Makx Dekkers	Reject
Roland Schwaenzl	Reject	Doesn't tell about the content of the resource.
Tom Baker	Reject
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve	A distinct DC element is probably a better choice, but this is an appropriate refinement of description
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Reject
Erik Jul	abstain
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Reject
Warwick Cathro	Approve	The best solution would be a new element. In the absence of this, Release needs to be recorded somewhere because it is needed in many applications.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

3. Question: Qualifier for 'Description': Abstract

	Label:	Abstract
	Name:	abstract
	Definition:	A summary of the content of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	22
Reject	2

Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Reject
Renato Iannella	Reject	Abstract is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason	Approve	"Abstract" is both a common convention & a formal requirement for many publications.
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve	It is certainly useful to know whether a Description contains an Abstract or a TOC.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve	refines dc:description. Would be a useful candidate for a dc:type as a genre of text.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

4. Question: Qualifier for 'Description': Note

	Label:	Note
	Name:	note
	Definition:	Any additional information about the content of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Reject	13
Approve	9

Abstain: 2

Choice with highest score: Reject

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Reject	Tautological.
Renato Iannella	Reject	Note is not a refinement of the element Description (but the value)
Jon Mason	abstain	however, I can see a use for this as a legitimate qualifier.
David Bearman	Reject	doesn't usefully refine
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Reject	Unqualified description IS a note.
Traugott Koch	Reject	for the reason mentioned by Priscilla
Juha Hakala	Reject	"Any additional information" does not sound like a refinement.
Diane Hillmann	Reject
Stuart Weibel	Reject	I am persuaded by the argument of others that this is redundant qualifier of an unqualified DESCRIPTION
Andy Powell	abstain
Makx Dekkers	Reject	Same as unqualified
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve	Note does not include TOC or Abstract. Unqualified dc:description includes TOC and Abstract.
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Reject	I'd call this an "Annotation" or a "Comment". These doesn't go along very well with the semantics with the Description element.
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Reject
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Reject	It seems that this is as equally ambiguous definition of that which it refines... as such I think a note *is* a description.
Warwick Cathro	Reject	Unnecessary - doesn't really refine the meaning of the element.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

5. Question: Qualifier for 'Format': Extent

	Label:	Extent
	Name:	extent
	Definition:	The size or duration of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	24
Reject	0

Abstain: 0

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve	There is no proposed encoding scheme.
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

6. Question: Qualifier for 'Format': Medium

	Label:	Medium
	Name:	medium
	Definition:	The media-type of the resource.
	Type:	Element Refinement

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	21
Reject	2

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	abstain	Refining by indicating medium is necessary and useful, but the definition is pretty useless and really should be revised before we accept such a qualifier.
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Reject	I approve of the concept but not the name "Medium". I would prefer something like "FileFormat" or even "MediaType". In the library community, "medium" and "media" are commonly and consistently used to refer to the physical carrier (e.g. CD-ROM, DAT) rather than the physical file-type. I realize MIME types are officially called "Internet media types" but nonetheless, going against such common usage in a large community is bound to be confusing.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve
Tom Baker	Reject	I agree that the concept and the definition need to be improved. Also, I do not believe "media-type" should be hyphenated if it is a noun.
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve	Definition needs improving, not at all obvious what it means to non-specialist
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve	Agree with others that the definition needs improvement.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

7. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Medium': IMT

	Label:	IMT
	Name:	IMT
	Definition:	The Internet MIME Type of the resource.
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	21
Reject	2

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve	As Tom says - under the current model this is an encoding scheme for *Format*, not for the qualifier. Editorial change required.
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Reject	See comment on Medium. I can't approve the encoding scheme if I reject the qualifier.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve
Tom Baker	Reject	This is not a qualifier of an element -- it is being balloted as a qualifier for a qualifier. Why?
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve	Should be an encoding scheme for Format
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	abstain
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

8. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Resource Identifier': URI

	Label:	URI
	Name:	URI
	Definition:	A URI Uniform Resource Identifier
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	19
Reject	4

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Reject	This is too general to be useful, and adopting this may prevent applications from using more useful and more granular encoding. My applications need to distinguish between URLs, Handles, and other identifiers, all formally URIs.
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve	Like Cilla says, not enough, but a start.
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve
Tom Baker	Approve	Recognizing "URI" does not preclude our recognizing more specific (and more useful) things like "URN" later.
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Reject	Need more specific encoding designation (Handle, URL, etc.) to be useful
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	Approve
Rachel Heery	Reject	I agree with others we should be specific to URL, URN
Diann Rusch-Feja	abstain
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Reject	This is too general to be useful. We should move to encode the specific types of URI.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

9. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Language': ISO639-2

	Label:	ISO639-2
	Name:	ISO639-2
	Definition:	Technical contents of ISO 639:1988 'Code for the representation of names of languages'.
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langhome.html

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	16
Reject	5

Abstain: 3

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve	The identifier needs to be cleaned up - the T and B suffices are important.
Renato Iannella	Reject	for interoperability sake - one language scheme is sufficent (rfc1766)
Jon Mason	abstain
David Bearman	Approve	Multiple schemes are essential to interoperability - they do not conflict woith the goal of interoperability as Ren suggests. We cannot legislate what kinds of lists different communities use. By refusing to recognize some schemes all we do is ensure that those who need that scheme don't use DC.
Leif Andresen	Approve	Agree with David: we can't uniform the world. When the world have more than one etablished scheme, DC Qualifiers must reflect it.
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Reject	doesn't work with xml:lang. ISO639-2 is incomplete information. The gadget comes in two brands /B and /T.
Tom Baker	Reject	Agree that multiple schemes are essential to interoperability. As Roland and Misha have pointed out, however (http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage/2000-01/0101.html) it is important to distinguish the two brands.
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Reject	3 defined subsets 639-2/B 639-2/T 639-1 are defined -- this needs to be more specific to be usable.
Stuart Sutton	Reject
Sigfrid Lundberg	abstain
Erik Jul	abstain
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve	Approving, but we do need to extend this to indicate clearly whether the B ot T flavour is being used. The B flavour is widely used in MARC records.
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve

10. Question: Encoding Scheme for 'Language': RFC1766

	Label:	RFC1766
	Name:	RFC1766
	Definition:	Internet RFC 1766 'Tags for the identification of Language' specifies a two letter code taken from ISO 639, followed optionally by a two letter country code taken from ISO 3166.
	Type:	Encoding Scheme
	See also:	http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1766.txt

type: single selection

Answer	Points
Approve	23
Reject	0

Abstain: 1

Choice with highest score: Approve

Voter	Vote	Voter's comment
Simon Cox	Approve
Renato Iannella	Approve
Jon Mason	Approve
David Bearman	Approve
Leif Andresen	Approve
Priscilla Caplan	Approve
Traugott Koch	Approve
Juha Hakala	Approve
Diane Hillmann	Approve
Stuart Weibel	Approve
Andy Powell	Approve
Makx Dekkers	Approve
Roland Schwaenzl	Approve
Tom Baker	Approve
Rebecca Guenther	Approve
Eric Childress	Approve
Stuart Sutton	Approve
Sigfrid Lundberg	Approve
Erik Jul	abstain
Rachel Heery	Approve
Diann Rusch-Feja	Approve
eric miller	Approve
Warwick Cathro	Approve
Shigeo Sugimoto	Approve