My first reaction is that it adds another layer of complexity, and I'm not sure that that's helpful or that it will help. I'm not sure that I understand why it might be necessary when rights management has been part of fairly standard cultural metadata for some years now (although maybe the problem is that it is embedded at a higher collections level description?).
Is there a difference between attitudes to open data and linked data between UK and US cultural institutions? Is this something in which those not connected with universities' or national collections are actively engaged? (I am curious, especially with the reduction/potential reduction in staff resources in the UK).
Janet
Janet E Davis
--- On Fri, 24/6/11, Mia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Mia <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Your thoughts? A 4-star classification-scheme for linked open cultural metadata
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, 24 June, 2011, 12:07
> Dear MCGers,
>
> I'd love to know what you think of the proposed '4-star
> classification-scheme for linked open cultural metadata'
> devised at
> the LOD-LAM workshop in San Francisco recently (you may
> remember
> earlier posts inviting applicants to the event)...
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|