The issue of the TYPE of a resource, which I see spanning the axis outlined
in the Resource type document, image, blah blah blah (not answering "how do
I decode this?" but "how do I place this in the grand scheme of like
thingys once I've figured out how to decode it?") is orthogonal to the
domain origin or social nature of the speech encoded and classified. I'd
find useful a classification of the nature of speech that would run along
an axis of commercial, academic, government or not-for-profit, taking the
original top-level US DNS (com,gov,mil,edu,org) domains as a strawthingy.
Could this be determined by smart interpretation of the DNS domain of the
source, contributor or
But in the extreme, annoying case, would spamsters adhere to this labelling
of their spam content which is, by definition, intentionally made stealthy
to avoid filtering? I don't think so. But is this any reason not to
provide a peg for good publishers to do the right thing? No, because
researchers and corporations might write on the same subject but unless
refereed, one might assume that the academic publication is more
"objective" than the commercial paper (at least until the academy is a
*wholly* owned subsidiary of commerce). K12 or not-for-profits might want
to filter out all commercial speech as well for obvious reasons.
So long as DC fields are repeatable, encoding this kind of multiple
dimensionality in DC records using multiple element instances might by
clunky and not pretty but feasible. The benefits of being able to filter
out information in which the publisher has a monetary interest coloring the
content or to favor more "objective" documents (YMMV) in a result set could
be a feature that adds very high-value (or subtracts very low value).
-marc
----
From: Diane Madrigal <[log in to unmask]>
To: meta2 mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 1997 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: Resource Types
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Terry Kuny wrote:
> Agreed with most of this. I didn't like "media"
> so maybe "document.press-release" is better. There are a number of
> people who have already indicated that they want a
> category like this. And I think there is a need to have
> a category for things which are "promotional" (spam being only
> an egregious form of promo). Any suggestions as to what
> might suffice to do the trick?
Why not call them what they are: advertisements.
Diane Madrigal
New York State Library
|