Kelly Ann
thank you for the suggestion but if you look at the work we have done
over the years, you will see that unfortunately it is not actually a
different 'version' that we are wanting to refer to.
There is quite a history here, but the concensus is that it should be
an equivalent not a version that we are seeking. It may even be that
the equivalents are all part of the same resource - just not always
used.
Liddy
On 21/01/2005, at 4:55 AM, Kelly A Green wrote:
> If you use Qualified DC, then you have the IsFormatOf and HasFormat to
> assist with describing accessibility.
> In general, the item that is published/produced first would be the
> primary resource, anything comes after with the same content in a new
> format is the secondary.
>
> Kelly Ann Green
> KMS Content Analyst
> Virginia Retirement System
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Looking for examples of practice on versions
>
>
> just to make things tricky, I want to remind you of the needs of the
> accessibility community.
> We tend to think of resources as composites of objects, some of which
> may be inaccessible. In this case, we substitute an alternative or
> sometimes we augment the original with an extra object. Now we don't
> think of these things as different versions, as such, but as
> alternatives or equivalent alternatives - the latter when, for example,
> I use something completely different from the original for a blind
> person because even a description of the image would not really help.
>
> So, we are talking about primary and equivalent objects .....these are
> not fixed labels so that what is a primary in one case may be an
> equivalent for a different primary. Also, both the primary and the
> equivalent are sometimes embedded within the same object ...
>
> hope this adds to the fun!
>
>
> Liddy
>
> On 13/01/2005, at 4:17 AM, Diane Hillmann wrote:
>
>> Folks:
>>
>> I'm involved in an effort to define "Best Practices" for OAI-PMH
>> interactions, sponsored by the Digital Library Federation and
>> including some of the most experienced practitioners in the business.
>> Despite all that collective knowledge, we're currently enmeshed in a
>> discussion on how to advise data providers to deal with versions,
>> given the Dublin Core 1:1 rule. I'm sure the fact that we are not in
>> agreement will come as no surprise to anyone.
>>
>> It seems to us that one major difficulty is that, for those who
>> choose to comply with 1:1 in the spirit of the rule, if not in the
>> letter, each provider will choose to slice and dice their content
>> differently, present the metadata for it differently, and assume that
>> their "best solution" works for downstream users. These solutions tend
>> to be very creative, but in fact they often create considerable
>> problems for indexing and access for aggregators of metadata.
>>
>> Although the OAI-PMH minimum requirement for metadata is Simple DC,
>> we've decided to focus our quest on solutions for Qualified DC first,
>> and then consider how "dumb down" would work in that context. So,
>> we're asking the folks on this list for discussion and examples of how
>> they deal with versions, particularly versions of the same (or what
>> they consider the same) intellectual object. We'd like to be able to
>> include some of these solutions in our practices documents, with some
>> analysis of what might be the advantages and disadvantages from the
>> point of view of the provider and downstream user.
>>
>> Thinking longer term, I was struck recently by an interchange on the
>> DC Architecture list about "description sets" in relation to the DC
>> Abstract Model (DCAM in these postings).
>>
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0501&L=dc-
>> architecture&T=0&F=&S=&P=60
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0501&L=dc-
>> architecture&T=0&F=&S=&P=288
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0501&L=dc-
>> architecture&T=0&F=&S=&P=401
>>
>> It seemed to me that there may be something in the concept of
>> "description sets" that we could consider in this context, and, at the
>> very least, propose a best practice that conforms in essence to the
>> approach taken in the abstract model. I'd be interested in hearing
>> any comments on this possibility.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> Diane I. Hillmann
>> Director of Library Services and Operations
>> National Science Digital Library
>> Cornell Information Science Voice: 607/255-5691
>> 301 College Ave. Fax: 607/255-5196
>> Ithaca, NY 14850 Email: [log in to unmask]
>> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>
|