Hi Pete
The problem I see with captured is that it is actually the creation date
of a digitised record, according to the semantics. The proposal says:
"date the resource was captured". The comment says "includes the date
the resource was digitised or a subsequent snapshot was taken...". A
resource that has been digitised from an existing resource should use
date created not date captured, so I don't understand the need in this
case. If date captured is applied to the description of the original
resource then there is a one-to-one problem in that the captured date is
about the new resource not the original resource.
The second case in the comment is another where the one-to-one issue
arises. If a snapshot of the 'digitised resource' is taken subsequent to
its creation then that date is about the snapshot, not about the
existing resource and should not appear in the date property of the
exisitng resource.
Cheers
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage
Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Johnston
Sent: Friday, 29 August 2008 5:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: property proposals from the Libraries AP TG
Hi Andrew,
> I have some concerns about the Library proposals which I will
> summarise for you:
> 1. 'captured' - in my view there is a severe conceptual problem with
> this proposal tied up with the 'one to one' rule
Could you say a it more about what you see as the problem here? (Or
point me at something if you already have, and I missed it! :-))
I don't really see a "one-to-one" problem, but I do rather think the
notion of "capture" needs to be clarified a good deal.
> 2. 'version' - I think this is completely misplaced, in my view, as a
> sub-property of 'description'. I don't agree at all that it can be
> viewed as a narrowing of the semantics of the 'description'
> property, in
> fact if we accept this term it would be best as a completely new
> property, not tied to an existing property - although I acknowledge
> that there could be arguments made for 'version' as a sub-property of
> 'title'.
I found this one problematic too. I agree with you that it doesn't meet
the requirements to be a subprop of dc:description, though as Tom points
out it doesn't have to be a subprop of anything. I was also a bit unsure
whether it was mixing two different notions: a "label"-like value (which
is what is suggested by the examples, "2nd edition" etc), and a
"statement"-like value, hinted at in the comment (but for which I don't
see any examples so I'm not sure whether they intend something different
by that or not). I think it should be one or the other, but not both.
Pete
|