The 1:1 model does not posit separate records for each information
resource, only a way of recognizing which elements:values belong to what
source. I hope this discussion will continue wiothin the relation working
group and urge those interested in pursuing it to join that group.
David
At 12:13 PM 10/24/97 -0400, R. Wendler wrote:
>Unlike lucky Kass, I wasn't able to get to Helsinki, but what I have
>heard so far of the 1:1 axiom concerns me, too. There is a tendency to
>take abstract models to an illogical extreme, only to see them
>disintegrate in actual practice. The library community has been dealing
>with the description of and access to reformatted materials for decades,
>and I hope we've learned something during that time. For example,
>we know that for the purposes of resource *discovery*, no one cares who
>ran the microfilm camera or when, and we have adjusted our practices to
>reflect this reality. Let's use what we've learned as we build a model
>to provide access to digitally-reformatted materials.
>
>The 1:1 model, if I understand it correctly, posits complete,
>independent metadata records for each instantiation with
>relation links between them. This does not seem to allow for
>inheritance of duplicative data (e.g. CREATOR and TITLE, in the case of
>a reformatted work) nor for primacy of the characteristics pertaining to
>the intellectual content rather than those of its erstwhile incarnation.
>
>In contrast to Kass, the Source element as it stands concerns me for the
>same reason: it buries the most important characteristics of a
>reformatted work in an un-subfielded element, segregating the author,
>publisher, and date users care about from those they will likely to be
>able to search. E.g., if the user searches for works by an author in a
>fielded search, he probably would not retrieve relevant (and only
>relevant) info also from the source element. However, if we subfield the
>Source element AND search engines treat CREATOR and SOURCE.Creator the
>same way, we come closer to a workable solution. I still prefer a
>grouping mechanism, myself, as being cleaner and more "ignorable" by
>those who don't want/need to be aware of it.
>
>--Robin
>
>
>Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
>Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
>Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
>Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
>
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Kass Evans wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
David Bearman, President
Archives & Museum Informatics
5501 Walnut St., Suite 203
Pittsburgh, PA 15232 USA
ph. + 1-412-683-9775
fax + 1-412-683-7366
email: [log in to unmask]
URL: www.archimuse.com
|