> Daniel,
>
As to what system we should adopt, that all depends on our users and the
materials. DC is fine for description of the majority of materials on the
Web for most users. However some users and items require special treatment.
For example geographic data sets used by GIS professionals would benefit
from the rich description available in FGDC metadata. Educators might be
better served by IMS or GEMS. Federal information is in GILS already. The
archival community is using EAD. I do not think any 1 metadata scheme will
satisify all users and all materials.
DC could serve as a baseline or common denomantor among these sets with only
those having additional requirements using the richer data.
The option is not which 1 scheme should we use but rather which scheme is
best in this situation and how do we navigate among all the different
schemes.
Sincerely,
David BIgwood
[log in to unmask]
Lunar & Planetary Institute
> ----------
> From: Daniel Angel[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:21 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: DC and MARC
>
> Carolyn
> Excellent points. My big question is what system
> should librarians throw their support behind for
> managing electronic records. DC seems to be the best
> thus far, at least for more traditional records and
> items a library would want that are web based. As far
> as importing these records into an opac, perhaps we
> need to step back even further and rethink opac
> theory.
> Thanks for the insight.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|