On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Ron Daniel, Jr. wrote:
> At 10:29 PM 4/23/97 +1000, you wrote:
> >Dear meta2ers
> >I am resending this message as I have received no responses to my earlier
> >post
>
> OK, I'll cast the first stone, even though I am not without sin. :-)
>
> >>One concern I have with the Knight / Hamilton format is that by running
> >>words together, it may reduce the chance of matches for searchers who do
> >>not know about particular schemes. For example, would searching for
> >>'thesis' find 'MastersThesis' ? This presumably depends on the design of
> >>the search software. Other format options for a scheme would be:
> >>1) 'Thesis.Masters'
> >>2) 'Masters Thesis'
>
> Good point. I would favor using approach 2, but that is a quick judgement,
> not a well-considered technical opinion. It might be a good idea to revisit
> Jon and Martin's list and come up with base types and modifiers, such as
>
> Thesis
> Honors Thesis
> Masters Thesis
> Doctoral Thesis
> Message
> Moderated message
> Unmoderated message
> Private Message
> Article
> Refereed Article
> Draft Article
> etc.
>
> >>First cut list of EdNA values for a scheme for the field DC.Type
> >>==============================================
> >>organisation
> >>orgunit
> >>organisation.educational
> >>organisation.parent
> >>organisation.professional
> >>individual
> >>school.primary
> >>school.secondary
> >>vetprovider
> >>aceprovider
> >>university
> >>project.research
> >>project.curriculum
> >>project.teachers
> >>project.students
> >>event
>
> Um, I don't understand the relevance of any of the preceding values to
> the "Type" field. Type is supposed to indicate the genre of the resource,
> such as book, poem, thesis, map, screenplay, etc. I don't understand how
> we are going to digitize a "university", "school", "project", or "event".
> Some things, such as "organization info", "project report" or "event
> schedule" might be extrapolated from the list above, but most of the list
> seems inappropriate.
I entirely agree with Ron. These are types of names, not types of
resources. It is a list of what we in the library world might call types
of name authority records. While I was working on the DC qualifiers, I
came up with a short list of types that I thought might be useful (but
thought it too much to propose with the DC qualifiers document). I
thought the Knight/Hamilton document combines types of genres with
publication patterns, quality, and relationships. Here is mine:
A possible pared down list of standard resource types:
Text ("book" or "journal" deals more with publication pattern
than resource type; both are text)
(the following four are specific forms of text):
Thesis
Dictionary
Advertisement
Manual
Dataset
Image
Music
Email message
Online service
Video/moving image
Map
Software
Home Page
Perhaps some applications need a more comprehensive list than this, but we
need to make sure that the types are mutually exclusive as much as
possible.
> >>forum
> >>forum.archive
>
> What sort of resource genre is a forum? forum.archive looks more like a
> legitimate resource, but I still don't know what to expect if I fetch
> something like that. Do you mean something like an email list (e.g. the
> meta2 list and archive)?
>
> >>message
>
> OK
>
> >>course.offering
> >>syllabus
> >>curriculum
>
> These appear reasonable. However, one of the critiques you raised about
> Martin and Jon's list was that it was "too detailed for us in some areas".
> I think the same critique applies here.
And will it be easy to make these distinctions? That's the problem with
detailed lists.
>
> For the purposes of the EdNA project, you may well need to make such
> distinctions. I suggest that you use a scheme=EdNA qualifier for
> those items (although others on the list may have a different opinion :-)
> Most of us might be happy enough with the "CourseMaterial" term from
> Martin and Jon's list.
As with other qualifiers, we may need a short general list that we can all
agree upon and then use extensions (in this case scheme=whatever) for the
more comprehensive list that particular applications use.
Rebecca
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior MARC Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4020 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Regards,
>
> Ron Daniel Jr. voice:+1 505 665 0597
> Advanced Computing Lab fax:+1 505 665 4939
> MS B287 email:[log in to unmask]
> Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel
> Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545
>
>
|