On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Robin Wendler wrote:
>
>However, it may be that Date and Coverage are the two places where we
>simply cannot live with the Canberra Qualifiers Rule. This pains me
>somewhat, because it's such an elegant rule...
Actually, I don't think we have to go that far. As a recent convert and
proponent the "date pristine," I hasten to point out that even if several
DC.date.whatevers reside in a particular record, if the search engine
doesn't understand the "whatever" and just treats them all as the kind of
date it prefers, what's the harm? At least from a discovery point of view,
that is.
It's only if the date gets ignored because the qualifier isn't understood
that we run into trouble.
>someone truly searching for a work with 1997 intellectual content would
>not be well served by pulling up everything that was digitized in 1997.
This is true, but, if qualifying dates is important for the searcher, and
the engine understands the qualifier and sorts out those that are not so
qualified, what's the problem? Who was it suspended the law of caveat
emptor?
I don't think we're in a position here to mandate qualifiers for all uses
of Dublin Core dates. I admit to a bit of hysterical giggling when I come
across these messages about "mandating" this or that standard. To those of
you who don't know, I am somewhat famous for whipping out a baseball cap
with the logo "USMARC Police" at ALA/MARBI meetings when people start
talking about "enforcement" of data standards. So when we mandate
qualifiers, will we make Stu wear a "DC Police" hat (and will Marion Barry
admit to knowing him?).
I don't think so. Coverage may be a different story, since nobody but the
spatial info folks worry much about it, much less understand it. Date is
for everyone, and cannot be denied to the unwashed masses.
>I myself am _not_ being churlish, you understand, though some of my best
>friends are churls.
So, Robin, which of your best friends are churls? I promise I'll never
reveal their names to a soul!
Diane
|