Dear Neil,
> You may want to check the slides from the meeting
> to see what direction we moving and what the UB
> had proposed also, including our discussion about the
> dateCaptured property.
I send the results of the UB discussion below. The
slides of the DC-Lib meeting are on the DC-2008
homepage (s. http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/libraries.pdf)
and you will find a summary of the DC-Lib meeting here:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0811&L=DC-LIBRARIES&P=58
Stefanie
*****************************************************************************
**********
Discussion at the UB meeting (20.09.2008) about
three new terms
Holding Location
-------------------------
Proposal for Holding Location (see also attachment)
* Definition of the proposal: The organisation that holds a
resource and is responsible for providing access to it.
* Comment of the proposal: The property should be used to
indicate where responsibility for the resource lies ... also
it may be used for identifying the location (rather than the
identifier) of the resource which are not available
electronically or for resources where access restrictions
mean that an application must be made to the holding
repository.
Discussion at the UB meeting:
* There is no clear distinction between location-as-place
as opposed to institution-as-agent
* Access and other kind of functional responsibilities for
resources are implied in ways that are ambiguous.
* There are possibilities for reuse of extant properties.
UB recommends to reuse the AGLS Term "availability
(http://www.agls.gov.au/documents/aglsterms/#DCAGLSNamespaces).
The definition of the term there: "How the resource can
be obtained or accessed, or contact information"
Version
-----------
Proposal for Version (see also attachment)
* Definition of the proposal: Information designating the
version or edition of a work
* Comment of the proposal: Includes statements
designating an edition or version. This may describe the
resource in terms of a number or statement that assists
in distinguishing it from other expressions of similar
content.
Discussion at UB meeting:
* Definition should be based on the version property
used by SWAP, but generalised
* Range should be literal
UB recommends to modify the definition of the proposed
term. Proposal of the UB for a definition: "A statement
which distinguishes the described resource from other
resources of which it may be an edition, revision or
adaption."
A revised proposal for a new property could be reviewed
by the Usage Board for possible inclusion in DCMI
Metadata Terms.
Captured
--------------
Proposal for Captured (see also attachment)
* Definition of the proposal: Date that the content of
the resource was captured
* Comment of the proposal: Includes the date the
resource was digitized or a snapshot was taken of
the resources content in the case of dynamic resources
such as web sites or databases.
Discussion at UB meeting:
* The semantics of the proposal need to be fixed:
- the definition of is circular - captured is defined with
captured
- which resource does the property apply to? It seems
as if the metadata record describes more than one
resource (this would break the 1:1 rule)
- in terms of FRBR captured is same as created. So
why not use created?
* Relationship of dct:dateCaptured to dct:isFormatOf and dct:hasFormat
- The Usage Board understands the intended use of
dct:dateCaptured in the context of the DCLib AP as
referring to "a related resource that is substantially
the same as the pre-existing described resource, but in
another format" (from the definition of dct:hasFormat)
-- in this case, a resource created by a "capture"
process.
* Can captured be generalized to other types of
resources or is this specific to the digitisation case?
The UB recommends revising the DC Libraries AP on a
FRBR-based domain model and to use created instead
of captured. If captured were really required as a property,
a new property could be submitted to the Usage Board,
with Definition and Comment modified in light of the issues
above and as a sub-property of dcterms:created.
------------------------------------------
Stefanie Rühle
Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek (SUB) Göttingen
Goettingen State and University Library
Forschung und Entwicklung - Research and Development
Papendiek 14
37073 Göttingen
Germany
Fon: +49 (0) 551-39-3883
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Internet: http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Libraries Community on behalf of Mary Woodley
Sent: Thu 05.03.2009 21:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Date Captured?
Neil,
There is a taskforce that has started working on revising the DCMI Library
AP. Robina and I will hopefully be able to finish work on this shortly. I the
proposals were presented in Berlin at the Library community meeting. You may
want to check the slides from the meeting to see what direction we moving and
what the UB had proposed also, including our discussion about the
dateCaptured property. We welcome any and all input as the work proceeds.
Mary Woodley
Co-Chair of the Taskforce on the DCMI Library AP
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Neil Godfrey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi all -- seems an earlier email I tried to send didn't make it so hope
this
doesn't end up being a double-up.
I have Julie Allinson to thank for prompting me to finally join this list
--
been meaning to for a long time now.
What I'd like to know first up is what is the current state of play re
the
dateCaptured property in the proposed DCMI Library AP. Has this been
virtually settled bar the final wording of a definition? Or are libraries
being consulted -- and if so, how?
Many thanks for bringing me up to speed with this.
Neil Godfrey
Principal Librarian
Digital Resources and Services
Singapore National Library Board
*********************************************************
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
*********************************************************
|
