Kass Evans felt an urge to reveal at 1:19 PM -0500 on 10/23/97:
> 2) As a former Head of Cataloging I would like to reiterate what most of
> you already know and that is the sky rocketing cost of cataloging. That's
> why I respectfully suggest, Let's keep it simple. If we don't absolutely
> have to create 3 metadata sets to describe a single item then let's don't.
> In my experience so far as an implementer, the user understands what the
> Source field means.
I question the reason behind choosing "most recent form" as a basis for
metadata. I'm wondering whether we might choose to say, alright, let's
look at this not purely from a catalog entry point of view but rather from
the point of view of the retrieval point of view, since that is why, to my
knowledge, things are cataloged in the first place. So, we have Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle's _A Study in Scarlet_. Will someone be searching for 1996
century, when it was digitized? No, they're going to aim closer to 1888.
Will they be searching for "Jon Jonson" who laboriously typed the whole
thing up? Nope. They'll want Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. So why not have an
entry look like this:
<DC:Creator>
<Name>Sir Arthur Conan Doyle</Name>
</DC:Creator>
<DC:Date>
<Value>1888</Value>
<Type>Created</Type>
</DC:Date>
And how can we cover its other forms?
<DC:Resource-Type>
<Value>Play</Value>
<Format>ASCII Text</Format>
<Source>Printed Manuscript</Source>
<Date>[here specifically implying date made available in this
resource-type]June 23, 1997</Date>
<Creator>[here specifically implying creator of this particular
resource-type]Jon Jonson</Creator>
</DC:Resource-Type>
I realize this is more weight than Resource-Type originally held, but I
think it can handle it.
-------------------------------------------------------
[ Jordan Reiter ]
[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
[ "I have all the defects of other people and yet ]
[ everything they do seems inconceivable to me." ]
[ --E.M. Cioran ]
-------------------------------------------------------
|