On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Flack, Irvin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Re DCAM ... and Karen's wishing it dead. ;-) I think some sort of common
> model is essential for interoperability between metadata standards and
> DCAM is general enough and flexible enough to do that. I've found it
> hard going and at first couldn't see why it was needed. But I can now
> really see the value in it and I definitely think it's worth persisting
> in your efforts to explain and reach out with documents like this.
>
Thanks, Irwin. That was me in a pique of frustration. I do think the
DCAM is useful, much like TCP/IP is useful. But we wouldn't have the
web or web services if everyone had to start with TCP/IP each time and
build up. DCAM needs to become the basis for easy to use applications,
and if it is successful most people creating metadata will not even
have to know that it exists.
I'm afraid that if we can't let DCAM fall gracefully into the
background, we'll not move forward. So my vow (for the sake of my
blood pressure) is that I'm just going to ignore it for a while. We
have some interesting work to do on the registering of RDA elements
and attempting to create application profiles. I'm heading over there
now to see if we can create an application profile that makes sense to
library catalogers. That's enough challenge to keep me busy.
kc
--
-- ---
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|