Ricky,
Thanks! As long as we could group or nest descriptions of different versions
of an intellectual or artistic entity together in one record, the problem of
multiple version would be relieved.
Karen
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: Resource Types
Author: "Ricky Erway" <[log in to unmask]> at ~Internet-Mail
Date: 9/22/97 4:04 PM
REPLY TO 09/22/97 15:18 FROM [log in to unmask] "khsu": Re[2]: Resource Types
Karen,
We will likely advocate (for people using the Dublin Core for a
variety of resources, including non-web resources) describing the
original always and if there is a surrogate, also describing the
surrogate in the same "record" by repeating the appropriate tags in a
second tag set.
So, if you have an image of a painting, first describe the painting,
then repeat the elements necessary to describe the surrogate. This
reflects our thinking that when someone is looking for a painting
on the web, they'll call it a painting, even though they may know
it's impossible to have a painting on the Web (unless it's created
using PC Paint!). The surrogacy is assumed and unspoken.
creator: VanGogh
title: Starry Night
publisher: MOMA
date: 1889
type: painting
creator: Nicolas Pioch
title: Image of Starry Night
publisher: WebMuseum
date: 1996-05-20
type: image/jpeg
-- and if it's important to describe the photograph that was scanned
perhaps a middle set of elements is called for!
The point is that users will look for the original thing, so you want
to supply that metadata. It could be that the only important aspect
of the surrogate is its URL, but some additional info about the
surrogate might be useful -- especially for this example, where there
are many surrogates on the Web.
Ricky
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: [log in to unmask]
|