This seems wrong to me.
I believe it is important to distinguish between an electronic object
that actually represents intellectual content (digital artwork, perhaps,
or an electronic document) and a record that is, in fact, only a pointer
to an object elsewhere (a metadata record describing a sculpture or
painting).
In the example that Ricky cites, it is easy enough for a human to
distinguish between the creator of the electronic surrogate and the
creator of the actual object, and the dates associated with each. In
other cases, it will not be so clear.
It seems there should be a TYPE = digital surrogate.
The creator of the surrogate might better be identified as a CONTRIBUTOR
rather than a creator. Is anyone going to want to 'discover' this
surrogate according to who the person was who digitized the image?
On Monday, September 22, 1997 7:05 PM, Ricky Erway [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
wrote:
> 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]
|