The second worldwide review of the Functional Requirements for Authority Data was completed in mid-2007. The Working Group is completing work in a new draft which incorporates comments received during the review. When complete, the draft will be submitted to Division IV for approval.
In the meantime, the draft used in the second worldwide review remains available. Readers of the document should be aware that there will be many changes in the final version.
This table contains DML bibliographic items from various repositories. # # Coding is as follows: # ASCII based (ISO Latin 8859-1 extended) # Every line starting with a '#' is a comment # # the list of items from any repository is preceded by lines like the following: # # nick: <repository nickname, usually short or acronym> # name: <repository name> # addr: <repository web address> # comm: <any comment concerning the actual repository # # After that, the bibliographic items of that repository are described by: # # item_title: <name or title of item> # item_years: <year(s) published or covered> # item_url: <web address of content page> # item_type: <journal|multivol|book> # (possibly other colon separated pairs, first component should begin with "item_") # item_end: <optionally some comment like a counting number...> # This last line ends any item entry. # # Some items do contain commented metadata for later use. # # comment lines like #--------------------------- or similar # could separate entries from different repositories
A Creative Commons license is inappropriate for cataloging records, precisely because they are unlikely to be copyrightable. The whole legal premise of Creative Commons (and open source) licenses is that someone owns the copyright, and thus they have the right to license you to use it, and if you want a license, these are the terms. If you don’t own a copyright in the first place, there’s no way to license it under Creative Commons.