I am confused. My remarks (included below) were intended only to
address the issue of metadata validation. The point I intended to make
is that it is probably too costly to 'validate' or endorse metadata on a
field by field basis... that a far more reasonable scenario is to trust
the source. yep... requires knowledge about metadata sources. when in
the history of scholarship has this not been true?
stu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Wason [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 5:22 PM
> To: Weibel,Stu
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Differentiating significance of DC.Subject meta data
> and Yell ow Pages
>
> 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]
|