On Tue, 21 Jul 1998, Simon Cox wrote:
> Neither the web-page or e-mail address are identifiers for
> instantiations of Stu. Arguably, they are resources in their
> own right. The 1:1 principle, which was extensively discussed
> at DC-5, asserts the notion that DC metadata should refer to
> a single specific instantiation of a resource.
Can anyone point me to DC implementations using the 1:1 principle
(where the 1:1 principle is *significant* -- e.g. for museum objects
for which only surrogates are deliverable)? I had to miss Helsinki,
unfortunately, and am ashamed to admit that I've never quite gotten the
point of 1:1. (I know it's logically pure, I just don't think it's
useful. I much preferred the notion of nesting DC element groups.)
I've been searching for an excuse to put DC to work in the library,
and there is a database under development here to provide access to
multiple surrogates for visual resources and museum objects in
collections. Those hierarchical relationships must be clearly displayed
and easily navigable. We can do this easily with existing tools without
using DC. It feels like we would have to jump through too many hoops
to get it to work easily and elegantly with data that conforms to DC 1:1,
because we would have to write functionality into the system that would
otherwise be "free" using a nested data structure. Help me see why I'm
wrong!
AMICO data (admittedly, and interestingly, not DC) is not constructed
1:1... can David say something about the decisions that went into that
record format, and why DC wasn't used?
--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 .............
|