Mikael,
If the book subject is China would I not be inclined to use dc.subject. The distinction that seems to be needed is whether we are trying to describe the resource - content - or some other aspect of the resource. Making the intention clear may require metadata additional to the DC.
Thanks
Cecil
-----Original Message-----
From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
Sent: May 27, 2005 10:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Publishing place
<< File: mini.vcf >> "The extent or scope of the *content* of the
resource."
But publishing place is not in the scope of the content of the resource,
is it? I wouldn't want a book about China to have dc:coverage "New York"
just because it was published there.
Do not confuse the type of the value ("Location" or "place") with the
relationship of that value with the resource.
/Mikael
Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> Place is given in dc:coverage. There is no way in simple DC to associate
> that place with the publisher, but that is where a place name goes.
>
> Definition and comment:
> "Element Description: The extent or scope of the content of the
> resource. Coverage will typically include spatial location (a place name
> or geographic co-ordinates), temporal period (a period label, date, or
> date range) or jurisdiction (such as a named administrative
> entity). Recommended best practice is to select a value from a controlled
> vocabulary (for example, the Thesaurus of Geographic Names [Getty
> Thesaurus of Geographic Names,
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/tgn/]). Where appropriate,
> named places or time periods should be used in preference to numeric
> identifiers such as sets of co-ordinates or date ranges."
>
> Rebecca
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
> ^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
> ^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
> ^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
> ^^ Library of Congress ^^
> ^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
> ^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
> ^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
> ^^ ^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:50:38 -0500
>>From: "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Publishing place in Simple DC?
>>
>>Hello all-
>>
>>Where should one put a publishing place in a *simple* Dublin Core
>>record? I get the sense that including this information in the
>><dc:publisher> element is common practice, especially in DC records
>>created in a library environment where publishing place and publisher
>>name are typically recorded together. But is that "best practice" from a
>>DC perspective? The definition of <dc:publisher> explicitly refers to
>>the entity itself, and the place where that entity conducts business is
>>not the entity itself. What are the other options of places for this
>>data to go? Does best practice differ if both the publisher and
>>publishing place is known vs. if only the publishing place is known?
>>=20
>>One argument might be that publishing place is a property of a publisher
>>and not of something published by that publishing entity. By that
>>argument, publishing place doesn't belong in the record for the item at
>>all but in the record for the publishing house. But I'm not entirely
>>convinced by this argument. Publishing place is much more a property of
>>a book than the birth place or date of the author of that book.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any ideas,
>>
>>Jenn
>>
>>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>Jenn Riley
>>Metadata Librarian
>>Digital Library Program
>>Indiana University - Bloomington
>>Wells Library E170
>>(812) 856-5759
>>www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>
>>Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:18:56 -0700
>>From: Mary Woodley <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: Publishing place in Simple DC?
>>
>>Jenn,
>>
>>You may want to consider how auction houses are now treated in the LC name
>>authorities. Originally, auction houses were not qualified by place, even
>>though an auction house like Sotheby's have auction houses internationally.
>> When bibliographic records for auction catalogs were converted from SCIPIO
>>records to MARC, there developed a problem with libraries maintaining
>>authority control since auction catalogs needed to use the individual
>>auction houses to identify specific catalogs. So now, the publisher /
>>auction house is qualified by place:
>>
>>Sotheby's (Beverly Hills, Calif.)
>>
>>In our projects, we use our institution as the publisher of the digital
>>object. For digitized books, publisher information was added to the
>>description/note or we added a call number that links to catalog record in
>>our Library Catalog (some the links were broken when we migrated to a new
>>ILS system)
>>
>>The problem is the one-to-one issue which many of us do not follow: we
>>describe the original and the digital surrogate. But we kept thinking about
>>how each specific record would look if harvested and taken out of its local
>>context. In this case, we thought it was important to identify our
>>institution as the publisher of the digital object and not to confuse
>>matters by adding the publisher for the original object.
>>
>>You might want to look at the work that the citation working group have
>>done. Our digital management software (CONTENTdm) allows us to make
>>hierarchical metadata: monograph. We can have metadata for the work as a
>>whole, and for the individual pages.
>>
>>Mary Woodley
>>California State University, Northridge
>>
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>>
>>>Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 20:50:38 -0500
>>>From: "Riley, Jenn" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Subject: Publishing place in Simple DC?
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>Hello all-
>>>
>>>Where should one put a publishing place in a *simple* Dublin Core
>>>record? I get the sense that including this information in the
>>><dc:publisher> element is common practice, especially in DC records
>>>created in a library environment where publishing place and publisher
>>>name are typically recorded together. But is that "best practice" from a
>>>DC perspective? The definition of <dc:publisher> explicitly refers to
>>>the entity itself, and the place where that entity conducts business is
>>>not the entity itself. What are the other options of places for this
>>>data to go? Does best practice differ if both the publisher and
>>>publishing place is known vs. if only the publishing place is known?
>>>
>>>One argument might be that publishing place is a property of a publisher
>>>and not of something published by that publishing entity. By that
>>>argument, publishing place doesn't belong in the record for the item at
>>>all but in the record for the publishing house. But I'm not entirely
>>>convinced by this argument. Publishing place is much more a property of
>>>a book than the birth place or date of the author of that book.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any ideas,
>>>
>>>Jenn
>>>
>>>========================
>>>Jenn Riley
>>>Metadata Librarian
>>>Digital Library Program
>>>Indiana University - Bloomington
>>>Wells Library E170
>>>(812) 856-5759
>>>www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>>
>>>Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>>
>>*********************************************************
>>Mary S. Woodley, Ph.D.
>>Collection Development Coordinator
>>California State University, Northridge
>>Northridge CA 91330-8328
>>[log in to unmask]
>>voice (818) 677-2261 fax: (818) 677-4928
>>*********************************************************
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>End of DC-GENERAL Digest - 11 May 2005 to 26 May 2005 (#2005-31)
>>****************************************************************
>>
>
>
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|