There has been some overlap in the discussions between metadata about
grey literature (for cross-searching etc) and data: the bulk of GL
contents is data, not metadata.
For metadata we can fairly freely identify elements that might promote
searchability and re-use, but for data, we must accept that the prime
determinant of a project report contents will be the *project's* purpose
not the *report's.*
One concern I would have from the GLADE user comments is that they
assume that searching a corpus of grey literature is the best way to
find out about archaeological data. We should, I hope, recognise that
this is a workaround arising from the ease with which GL can be added to
OASIS. In the long term, the best way to find archaeological data
should be by examining the structured, consistent and validated data
sets comprising the HERs, online or not. If there is currently a
problem that needs fixing, I would say the problem is that HERs have
backlogs of published and unpublished sources which have not been
analysed and added to the record, of which GL is only a subset, if the
most visible. Therefore we should be looking to HERs to tell us what
*they* find most troublesome about current GL reports.
Martin
--
Martin Locock
Rheolwr Cymorth y Project Project Support Manager
Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru National Library of Wales
[log in to unmask] Ffôn / Phone 01970 632885
Un o lyfrgelloedd mawr y byd One of the great libraries of the world
http://www.llgc.org.uk/
|