Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 17:11:21 +0500
From: dupuy@smarts.com (Alexander Dupuy)
Message-Id: <9407112111.AA07125@just.smarts.com>
To: ccoprmm@oit.gatech.edu, hoyman@gate.net, mark_crook@oclc.org,
Subject: Re: URC-Authors section
> o Author:
> This pair will encode the name of the Author(s) of a given document or
> resource. Since many cultures have different ways of writing names,
> the standard name representation should be that the first element of
> the value should be the first element of the name to be parsed for
> sorting purposes, the second element of the name should be the
> second element to be parsed, and so on.
> Comments?
This certainly seems like an extremely reasonable approach, and is pretty much
the same as what I thought of when I saw your original post. I did like the
suggestion that somebody else made (sorry, don't remember exactly who) that
the author field include an e-mail address. You probably don't want to be
sorting on those, so it might be worth specifying the syntax by which e-mail
addresses would be included and noting that they should be ignored for sorting
purposes.
Alternately, you could have a separate Contact: URC section which would be
just for e-mail/postal/whatever addresses. I think this is probably
preferable to specifying sorting/non-sorting subcomponents of the Author:
field.
@alex