I am not keen to get involved in the DATE discussion at this stage -
I have enough trouble keeping up with Resource Type.
However, in reply to Ricky Erway in his example:
>if Resource Type contains "sculpture"
>creator is Michelangelo
>date is 15xx or whatever
>format is stone-carving or whatever (anyone for "realia"?!?)
>publisher is empty or the Galleria dell'Accademia
>
The Date fits under the COVERAGE element, not under DATE.
regards
arthur chapman
Environment Australia
>['Scuse the narrative. Please at least take a look at the examples
>at the end of this message.]
>
>There is a higher-level discussion that I (and silent others) think
>we need to have before we can make sense of the detailed debate going
>on about Date and Resource Type.
>
>The *nature* of the element: Resource Type needs to be fleshed out.
>
>Resource Type ought to be reserved for the purpose of indicating what
>thing is being described (e.g., statue, picture of statue, digital
>image of picture of statue, or web page about the statue). In other
>words, all the other elements should be interpreted as being about
>the thing identified in Resource Type.
>
>This makes Date meaningful, as well as Publisher, Creator... All of
>our element definitions refer to the "resource" -- Resource Type
>should reflect what the heck the resource is.
>
>Without it, all is muddled. It also allows the describer to focus on
>the description which will help users find the resource. And it
>lets the user distinguish what type of thing they are looking for
>and therefore what they mean when they say Date.
>
>Format then, could be used, when applicable, to give specific format
>information about that instance of the Resource Type (e.g.,
>Postscript, ascii, TIFF, vhs or beta, 16mm or 35mm for microfilm).
>
>For many applications currently under discussion, the Resource Type
>would be Web page(s) and Format might be unnecessary, though one
>could supply HTML, XML, or whatever. They way we describe a personal
>home page or institutional home page may be quite different from how
>we describe a particular page deep down in, say, a museum site where
>what is of interest is not the page itself.....
>
>
>For instance, for Michelangelo's David:
>
>if Resource Type contains "photograph"
>then creator is the photographer
>date is the day the picture was taken
>format is 35mm slide or whatever
>publisher might likely be empty or might contain the name of the
>publisher of the book, calendar, poster in which the photo appears or
>perhaps the gallery in which it is hung
>
>if Resource Type contains "sculpture"
>creator is Michelangelo
>date is 15xx or whatever
>format is stone-carving or whatever (anyone for "realia"?!?)
>publisher is empty or the Galleria dell'Accademia
>
>if Resource Type is "web page"
>creator is David Phillips
>date is 1996-04-15
>format is html
>publisher is David Phillips or Onramp Access, Inc (Phillip's
>web space provider)
>
>if Resource Type contains "digital image"
>then creator is the person who scanned it
>date is the day it was scanned
>format is JPEG or whatever
>publisher is likely empty or may be the sponsor of the website or
>CD-ROM publisher, etc.
>
>Whaddaya think?
>Ricky
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
|