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....
|