Bruce D'Arcus
Bruce D'Arcus
In general and at first glance, looks good ... except for that component/@component duplication. Is that correct, or a typo?
A component of a component, same node name for element and attribute, makes no sense. Maybe we need a different name for that attribute? I'll take a closer look later...
Where do we stand with this one? The issue does flag an unaddressed requested change, which I assume @bwiernik did address. If yes, can you please click that you did...
> @bdarcus Is this good to merge now? Can you just respond to my last note, then I can test it tomorrow. IIRC, the only issues was the name/name node...
I've not yet read this thread carefully, but ... If you cite the amended document, then original seems appropriate to me. I can't see the use case for an amended...
Dublin Core has `hasVersion` and `isVersionOf` as top-level relations. https://www.dublincore.org/specifications/dublin-core/dcmi-terms/2006-12-18/ Not suggesting that necessarily, but FYI. I haven't look at this forever, but we based some properties on dc relations...
- Changed content. --- ``` Original Comment By: Jakob Voss ```
Why the need for explicit "anonymous" support? E.g. what's wrong with the current behavior? I know hypothetically we could end up with a mix of anon and other names as...
The cases I see for et al. are (1) that of reused citations-- it is possible to not know the entirety of the creators' collective if all we know is...
The previous post is mine. --- ``` Original Comment By: ajlyon ```