new iafa draft

R M Heery <> Mon, 18 December 1995 13:00 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07585; 18 Dec 95 8:00 EST
Received: from [] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07581; 18 Dec 95 8:00 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00798; 18 Dec 95 8:00 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) id HAA09575 for iafa-out; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:56:58 -0500
Received: from (mocha.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA09570 for <>; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 07:56:55 -0500
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA00437 (mail destined for; Mon, 18 Dec 95 07:56:49 -0500
Received: from (actually host by with SMTP (PP); Mon, 18 Dec 1995 12:12:57 +0000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 12:12:44 +0000 (GMT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: R M Heery <>
To: Jon Knight <>
Subject: new iafa draft
Message-Id: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

Just been reading through the new draft you circulated (thanks!) and have 
a few comments, see below. I fully support the re-issue of the draft. We 
are using IAFA templates in a number of new implementations as part of 
the eLib project, and we need a working document to reflect changes and 
developments of the templates.


1. The original draft focusses on the use of IAFA templates to describe 
the contents of ftp archives. As the context of the use of IAFA templates 
has broadened, particularly in the use by the eLib subject service to 
build up databases of a whole variety of networked resources, then 
perhaps this could be reflected in the draft? I think a few words in the 
abstract and introduction to change the focus would be useful. Similarly 
in section 6 it is assumed that all creators of the templates will be 
administrators of ftp archives.

2. The last sentence of the introduction needs to be amended as this 
document is no longer available....

3.  In section 6.4.2 you have left a data element described as 'Library 
cataloguing information'. I assumed this should be changed to Subject 
Descriptor, as you have outlined later in the document?

4. In 8.4.4 Note 3 I think it would be worth including a subject heading
scheme as I understand this would be valid e.g. LCSH Library of Congress
Subject Headings

Rachel Heery                   
ROADS Research Officer                             
UKOLN (UK Office of Library and Info Networking)   tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK               fax: +44 (0)1225 826838