|
| Proposed Qualifiers: Creator, Contributor, Publisher (2000-04-01) |
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
1. Question: Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Editor
| 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 |
type: single selection
| 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. |
2. Question: Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Performer
| Label: | Performer | |
| Name: | performer | |
| Definition: | An agent who exhibits musical or acting skills in a musical or dramatic presentation or entertainment. | |
| Type: | Element Refinement |
type: single selection
| 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 |
3. Question: Qualifier for 'Author/Creator': Adaptor
| Label: | Adaptor | |
| Name: | adapter | |
| Definition: | An agent who reworks a resource usually for a different medium | |
| Type: | Element Refinement |
type: single selection
| 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 |
4. Question: Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Editor
| 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 |
type: single selection
| 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 |
5. Question: Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Sponsor
| 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 |
type: single selection
| 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 |
6. Question: Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Translator
| 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 |
type: single selection
| 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 |
7. Question: Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Performer
| Label: | Performer | |
| Name: | performer | |
| Definition: | An agent who exhibits musical or acting skills in a musical or dramatic presentation or entertainment. | |
| Type: | Element Refinement |
type: single selection
| 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 |
8. Question: Qualifiers for 'Contributor': Adaptor
| Label: | Adaptor | |
| Name: | adapter | |
| Definition: | An agent who reworks a resource usually for a different medium | |
| Type: | Element Refinement |
type: single selection
| 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 |
9. Question: Qualifier for 'Publisher': Distributor
| Label: | Distributor | |
| Name: | distributor | |
| Definition: | An agent or agency that has exclusive or shared marketing rights for an item. | |
| Type: | Element Refinement |
type: single selection
| 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 |
Contact András Micsik if you have problems with voting.
| © MTA SZTAKI DSD |