Hi Karen Quick answer? I'm guessing that its because by definition a Treaty would require a signatory in order to exist. I guess in the same way that a while a comic book would have an author, it *must* also have an illustrator (else it couldn't be a comic book)? A thought btw - it *must* have atleast 2 signatories - you can't have a treaty with only 1 signatory as it is by definition an agreement between 2 or more parties? A ratifier on the other hand, would be a corporate body with a relationship to a treaty, but you don't require a ratifier for a treaty to exist?
Cheers Chris Beer Project Manager Data Migration Project Website Publishing | Delivery Branch | Communication Group Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2010 12:45 To: [email protected] Subject: [RDA-L] Signatory to a treaty Can anyone explain, or point me to an explanation, for how "Signatory to a treaty, etc." became defined as an attribute of a Work, rather than a corporate body with a relationship to a work? It's the only potential Group 2 entity that has ended up in Group 1 space, so I assume there is something particular about it. Thanks, kc -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet Notice: The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the DEEWR Switchboard on 13 33 97 (1DEEWR) during business hours (8am - 8pm AEST) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.
