- From: Jim Conklin <conklin@info.cren.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:42:12 -0500
- To: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>, terry@ora.com
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
At 10:03 AM 1/2/95 -0700, Ronald E. Daniel wrote: > ... >The review attribute may be something that members of the group just >have to agree to disagree upon. ... Does it make any sense to consider including "ratings" (i.e., a _short_ synopsys of a review or other val;ue judgement) and referencing longer reviews (i.e., real documents) through appropriate use of URLs rather than including what could be real documents in a URC? > >As for Author, I was thinking that we would adopt the AACR2 rules of >listing an author's name in the form that it normally appears in sorted >lists of names for the author's culture. ... In terms of human readability and understandability, it seems to me to be desirable to use this approach rather than the SORTNAME-element approach, at least if real people are going to be looking at URCs without the benefit of a client (as I suspect will happen a lot). Jim
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 1995 12:44:34 UTC