Peter has asked me to forward this to the list.
</txk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:01:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Peter Graham, RUL" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Resource Types
this is getting better. a couple of quick comments off the top:
1. Document.media: "media" is used in an entirely different sense in
education and library work, not to mention computing, and I think would be
confusing here. I find it hard to be constructive except to say I'm not sure
about the category as such; why privilege a p.r. over other kinds of
productions, say novels, poems, etc. And who is to say what's promotion as
opposed to a press release? most of the latter I see in the e-world are
really the former. My press release, your promotion, his spam. Who
will do the defining? On balance I'd forget it.
2. Speaking of mixed media: many documents are in fact composites of much
of what you distinguish. Does this matter? Gant charts are released as part
of text memos, help manuals have graphics (and sound!), scientific articles
are now likely to contain moving images. You can think of your own example.
Judging by a 51% margin seems to me to lead to nothing but trouble. What
principle should be followed?
3. You dismiss seriality as a mode of publication rather than a subject
content. You're right, but that's true of other elements, isn't it? Is my
image of a 19C broadside a document or an image? The content doesn't help
determine. Knowing something is serial in nature is of assistance in
knowledge navigation. It's true it's a modality that cuts across other kinds
of definitions (as we found in the MARC world, where maps, books, a-v it
turned out could all be serial).
The larger issue here is not seriality but multiple-mode description.
4. Related is straitjacketing in current technology. I know you're
thinkinbg broadly, but when I see "TALK" for chat groups and conversations I
wonder if you're considering that already we're seeing video-reflectors (and
pretty repugnant too, most of them), and no doubt will have multimedia
versions in spades soon. Moos and Mudds no doubt will get graphical, to our
general weariness.
5. OK, use screed if you like; the category i don't find helpful. One
person's informal is another's document. A lot of webpages are informal. If
that's what you mean, though, why not call it informal instead of a term open
to interpretation when not deemed weirdly obscure. Or "personal". Or
something that has more semantic value. But mainly I think the category
isn't very well defined; maybe a better term(s) would define it better.
More when I look at this more as a whole; you've put more thought into it
than I recognize yet. --pg
Peter Graham [log in to unmask] Rutgers University Libraries
169 College Ave., New Brunswick, NJ 08903 (908)445-5908; fax(908)445-5888
<URL:http://aultnis.rutgers.edu/pghome.html>
|