I believe that what Stu is saying is "let the Dublin Core stand neutral
on the issue of Ordering, etc. of fields". Instead, would it be useful
to have a "suggested practice" and see what the community of users does?
--Tom
Weibel,Stu wrote:
>
> whoa, folks... you may well be able to do this within the capability of
> the technology, but it strikes me as very costly to do it (and maintain
> it).
>
> consider an alternative... scoping and validity are enforced through the
> policy of the orgnizations that collect the metadata.
>
> if you want formal description data done according to library cataloging
> standards, you go to a library catalog or OCLC. If you want to just buy
> the book or read reviews, go to amazon.com or its ilk.
>
> if you want a picture of the statue of David, go to the Florence Tourism
> web site... if you want museum provenance, go to the Getty Web site.
>
> if you want educational materials described according to a particular
> standard, go to the World Consortium of IMS web site, if you want
> language tapes, go to Berlitz.
>
> Yes, you can build in fancy validation and authentication of metadata...
> my guess is that it will be no better than what I described above and
> FAR more costly.
>
> stu
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 1998 11:53 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Differentiating significance of DC.Subject meta data
> > and Yellow Pages
> >
> ...stuff deleted...
>
> > Theoretically, resource discovery will be iterative. On the first
> > pass, I
> > may only want to retrieve resources that are _primarily_ about a given
> > keyword(s) and whose meta data has an official status (official
> > position,
> > accepted, authorized, finalized, etc.). If I don't find what I'm
> > looking
> > for, I might then expand my search net by accepting unvalidated meta
> > data,
> > drafts, works in progress, unofficial positions and/or resources that
> > are
> > not primarily about my topics, but reference them. On the final pass,
> > if I
> > still don't have what I want, I would probably resort to full text
> > search.
> >
> > To support this ability to fine tune search scope we need a mechanism
> > for
> > identifying two things about subject meta data
> >
> > 1) Is this good, _verified_ (knowledge managed) meta data: has
> > anyone
> > else looked at it? has it been audited? can it been attested to?
> > 2) Is this the primary topic for the resource, or a contributing
> > topic?
> >
> >
> > ... more stuff deleted....
--
--------------------------------------------
Thomas D. Wason, Ph.D.
Director of Research and Evaluation
Institute for Academic Technology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
730 Airport Rd., Suite 100
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599 USA
919.962.9286
919.962.4321 FAX
[log in to unmask]
|