- From: <weibel@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 14:57:10 -0400
- To: uri@bunyip.com
I posted this to the URC list last week, but Harald suggested I cross post it here so that all URI readers will have seen it. After many extensive discussions on the subject, I have concluded that Yet-Another-URI-WG is not necessarily the best way forward in the search for useful resource description element sets, and I will not be submitting a charter for such a group at this time. The result of such a working group could hardly assume more stature than simply an informational RFC, and such an RFC can be developed without the overhead of a separate WG. Whatever URC scheme evolves must accomodate a broad spectrum of metadata, and we will be working to assure that library resource description can be accommodated sensibly. gee... I feel better already ;-) stu ----------------- Addendum I hope no one will infer from this that there is any decline in our desire to see progress toward interoperable resource description schemas put into place. Rather, it just seems more productive to move towards this goal in a process that is less formal and that involves groups that are not typically well represented in the IETF world. Certainly I will attempt to engage URI folks in any efforts that we undertake toward this goal. comments welcome
Received on Monday, 14 August 1995 14:57:23 UTC