Rebecca,
Regarding your suggesting that the relation field in the DC be used as a
way of identifying other Warwick Framework Objects. I infer from this
suggestion the though that the DC is a "summary form" of metadata that
provides pointers to other metadata for the object. In other words, a
client or agent might first find a DC record for an object and then use
it as a guide to the rest of the object (answering questions like "what
other types of metadata are there for this object"). I think I disagree
with this (although I'm certainly willing to think more about it). The
problem is that it again suffers from overloading what we want from the
Core. In my mind the DC is just one components of possible multiple
sets of metadata. It is not the "structure description file" of the
sets of metadata or the "summarization of the other sets of metadata".
It should simply be a format for short descriptive data. If we want to
come up with a top level component of the Warwick Framework that is
possiblty the "table of contents of the object - its data and metadata"
than that is another discussion.
Carl
>----------
>From: Rebecca Lasher[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, October 24, 1996 2:19 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Relation field
>
>
>Comment on the Relation Field:
>
>The Identifier field is used to uniquely identify the object. Examples
>for networked resources include URLs, URNs (when implemented). For
>non-networked objects, one might have an ISBN, Library of Congress
>Catalog Number, or other formal name.
>
>The Relation field can identify Warwick Framework Objects that
>include Terms and Conditions, other MetaData, payment mechanisms,
>and not yet thought of computational objects.
>
>Rebecca Lasher
>Mathematical and Computer Sciences Library
>Stanford University
>
>>> Rebecca Lasher wrote:
>>>RELATION is an important field. Keep it.
>>>
>>>I am hoping this field will allow the DC to be
>>>used in creative ways. Before giving examples
>>>I want to see the requirements document.
>>>
>>>Briefly, The Relation field gives the DC more utility
>>>than it would have without it.
>>
>> Lou wrote:
>>
>>This really isn't a very strong argument for putting such a field
>>into the core! Why not call it "Miscellaneous Other Stuff We Haven't
>>Thought Of Yet" if that's all it's for
>>
>>Lou
>>
>>p.s. I believe that's what in MARC terminology is known as an "Other
>>Note"field
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|