> From [log in to unmask] Thu Nov 28 13:13 PST 1996
> ...
> While I can appreciate the difficulties that writing the User Guide
> posed, I do feel that this thread has wandered beyond the scope of what
> the DC effort was originally intended to, or indeed can, do.
You are replying to a brand new thread, so I take it you think that the
message itself wandered. It was concerned entirely with DC audiences
and what we mean (and do not mean) by the concept of resource discovery.
What could be less wandering or central to the DC than that?
> I agree with the things you have cut out of the realm of DublinCore, but
> I would go further.
>
> > DC Resource Discovery Phases Main DC Audience
> > --------------------------------------- ---------------------------
> > Search Support:
> > (1) metadata provision phase PROVIDERS
> > (entering and updating, whether by (authors, secretaries,
> > hand or with automated assistance) site administrators, etc.)
> >
> > (2) metadata collection phase INDEXERS
> > (gathering metadata, binding to (local programs, internet
> > a resource, analyzing, indexing) crawler robots, etc.)
> >
> > Request-Response Search Cycle:
> > (3) search phase SEARCHERS
> > (formulation of request based (school kids, scholars,
> > on metadata access points) nurses, professional, etc.)
> >
> > (4) selection phase SEARCHERS
> > (examination of returned records;
> > discard/select based on metadata)
>
> I don't believe that 3 or 4 are limited to this forum.
I agree completely. The four phases identify the broad activity that will
be occupying the different kinds of DC "users". Unless I'm very mistaken,
we imagine that this usage is limited to general purpose or DC-aware tools,
such as word processors, text editors, robots, search engines, and browsers.
While designing these tools is clearly out of scope for meta2, designing
the DC with these phases and tools in mind is entirely appropriate.
> The issues you are getting at, I believe, have more to do with ensuring
> that people will provide _"good"_ metadata -- data that will be accurate
> and useful in a number of contexts. This may be more of a problem with
> trying to write a User Guide than with the DC itself.
The Guide is concerned with "good" metadata, and I'm interested in your
suggestion that the DC is not. But that's a topic for a separate thread
since my message was meant to be only about foundation issues.
> ...
> This is not a theoretical exercise -- the experiment is out of the lab.
Perhaps this is what you meant by wandering, that DC discussion should
focus on putting on the finishing touches. I happen to believe that's
an overly optimistic assessment.
-John
|