Judith Pearce writes:
> Should Dublin Core be being used to describe these resource types in the first
> place? The fact that they're not document-like objects seems to me to be a key
> issue. Wasn't there an intent originally to identify other object types that
> might be handled through a Dublin Core-like structure? I see this as different
> from extending Dublin Core to handle specific types of document-like object and
> having a Resource Type hierarchy to categorise document-like objects.
The origin of DLOs was simply a scoping mechanism to focus discussion
in the first workshop. We recognized that we had to address problems
we almost already knew how to solve to actually make progress. It
worked.
We still have exactly the same problem: keeping the discussion focussed
so we actually solve some problems along the way, as opposed to trying
to solve everyone's resource description all at once.
I personally have no problem with people trying to extend the DC
description model to non-DLO-like objects [cloying irony intended].
BUT...
We should not be sidtracked by the angels know to be dancing on the
head of the pin.
The notion of DLOs was sharpened in DC-3 by David Bearman, who
suggested the distinction should actually be based not on whether the
resource is primarily text or image, but rather that it looks the same
to each person who accesses it. A digitized film clip qualifies; a
database-performance probably does not.
You may still want to create a collection-level record for such a
database, and its not out of scope to discuss possible TYPEs to include
such things, but lets not lose sight of the main show.
stu
|