At 03:20 PM 1/27/98 -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
Stu,
Your relation discussion is interesting, and I think in a sense
syntactically elegant, but it doesn't accommodate all of what we actually
decided as a working group and results in violating your own rule for CD
simple by creating, in effect, four elements where only one existed before.
We defined Relation.Type and Relation.Identifier as separate sub-elements.
Your proposal takes four of the Relation-types we proposed, and makes them
elements of their own, which carry the values of Relation-identifiers. This
leaves out many other relation-types vwe thought were important/necessary.
It would be simpler, in DC simple, if you suggested that the relation type
and relation identifier were both VALUES of the element, which a required
syntax such as NoSpaceControlledTerm and 1234whatitpointstoidentifier
separated by a spasce, or colon, or whatever internal delimiter.
This way DC Simple would object to the number and variety of
Relation-types we thought were necessary, nor require inventotion of new
elements, and yet it could get away with separate sub-elements for Relation
and Identifer.
David
>
>4.3.13 RELATION
>
>The RELATION element logically requires three components: two entities
>and a named relationship that links them. The base entity is the
>resource described by the metadata. The target entity is separate
>object that should be identified in an unambiguous way with a globally
>unique identifier (see the IDENTIFIER element).
>
>Many communities have identified relationship hierarchies specific to
>their fields of endeavor, and it is expected that scheme-qualified
>relationship specifications will come to be used in domain specific
>applications. Unqualified relation specifications should chose from
>among the following relation types for DC-Simple applications:
>
>
> Relation.IsPartOf [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
>
> The resource being described is physically and/or logically part of a
>larger resource, referred to by this use of the element.
>
> Relation.HasPart [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
>
> The resource being described physically and/or logically contains one
>or more constituent resources, referred to by this use of the element.
>
> Relation.IsVersionOf [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
>
> The resource being described is an historical state or edition of an
>earlier resource by the same creator, the earliest instantiation of
>which is referred to by this use of the element.
>
> Relation.HasVersion [TARGET RESOURCE IDENTIFIER]
>
> The resource being described is the earliest edition of a resource
>later altered through further editions, one of which is referred to by
>this use of the element. As a practical matter, this will be unusual,
>given that it would require updating of existing metadata, but automated
>versioning systems might make good use of such a relation.
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
|