Hello,
The following are some general comments of the University of Washington Libraries' Metadata Implementation Group on proposed DC terms.
Allen Maberry
Monograph Services
University of Washington Libraries
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: Compiled MIG comments on proposed DC terms
Subject: [UB Proposal "Provenance"]
Description.Provenance is a way for people to put provenance information
in a separate field that could be suppressed. We can see why metadata
providers would want some way to identify and separate out that kind of info
from more general Description information. And, since there are fields for it
in other schemes, including MARC, it is a pretty well accepted concept.
Subject: [UB Proposal "Is Available At"]
In the UW Libraries' CONTENTdm databases, we currently describe availability in a field that is not mapped to a Dublin Core element. "Is Available At" would
offer us the better option of using a DC-mapped field.
Subject: [UB Proposal "DC Rights-related Terms"]
The idea of separating license conditions from the name of the rights
holder makes sense, but it is unclear why Rights.License is a refinement,
while RightsHolder cannot be a refinement of Rights but has to be a whole
new term. We most often put the rights holder in DC.Rights now; are we doing
something wrong?
Others agreed that it is somewhat unclear why Rights.License is a refinement
and RightsHolder is a new term, if that is really what the writers intended.
However, when they are mentioned in the "Proposed Element Refinements"
section they are both called "terms".
|