On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Ricky Erway wrote:
> REPLY TO 10/23/97 12:43 FROM [log in to unmask] "Kass Evans": 1 to 1 Relation &
> multiple metadata sets
>
> Kass,
>
> I think that if the cataloger and the likely users are interested in
> the digital surrogate, that is what should be described. I
> believe that the 1:1/relation group represents people who are
> interested in original things (and probably have them "in-hand" in
> their collections). The fact that there is a digital surrogate is
> merely a reference convenience, not what is being sought by the users
> of the metadata (e.g., the person searching Altavista for examples of
> impressionistic painting will search for Type=painting not
> Type=digital image). A person who has a digital image, but does not
> "hold" the original, probably won't think of his image as a
> surrogate.
>
> I think there should be no onus to describe any other
> versions/instantiations/reproductions than those deemed important to
> endusers trying to find the thing described. That is still the
> point.
>
> Ricky
>
> Ricky Erway, RLG
Ricky,
I realize that I may not have been clear. Following Ralph Swick's
presentation on the last day on Relation and RDF, I spoke with Ralph and
Eric Miller about the implications. If I understood them correctly (many
apologies if I did not) then what they were advocating was:
A metadata set for a digital copy of a photograph may *only* discuss the
digitized photograph. If you want to provide info on the actual
photograph then you must make a second metadata set for the photograph and
provide some type of pointer to it (a Mechanical Relation). And if you
want to provide info for the original painting that was photographed then
you will need to make a 3rd metadata set for the painting and provide some
type of pointer to that (another Mechanical Relation). This new
interpretation of Relation, Mechanical would effectively supplant the
current use of Source.
I have no concerns about each version having its own metadata set. My
concern is that the person creating metadata for the digitized photo not
be prescribed to create the other 2 metadata sets in order to convey that
information when it fits so nicely into Source.
I left DC5 with the impression that a number of the folks working on
Relation were moving in this direction and wanted to register an early
vote against this level of complexity. If I have totally misunderstood
the point that Ralph was making with his diagrams then I will happily
stand corrected.
Kass Evans
Florida International University
Digital Library Project
[log in to unmask]
|