The museum community (under the leadership of John Perkins and the
Coalition for Interchange of Museum Information, or CIMI, is conducting
a testbed using Dublin Core. The testbed involves a variety of museums
(art, culture, natural history), and a substantial number of records,
and certainly includes a broad cross section of resource types,
including physical objects. I'm not sure when there will be an interim
report about their very impressive progress, but I think soon, and I
believe they have some light to shed on these difficult problems.
stay tuned... its exciting stuff.
stu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 9:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Resource Types off-line
>
>
> When I first raised the question of using DC to describe non-networked
> resources, I recieved a resounding negative response citing objections
> from
> the museum community in particular.
>
> When I asked a second time there were not only no negative responses,
> but
> some positive ones. The existence of a "Physical Object" on Simon's
> most
> recent list of types would apear that we have indeed relaxed the
> networked
> resource restriction for using DC.
>
> Are we ready to consider making this official?
>
>
>
>
> From: dih1 on 07/28/98 12:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject: Re: Resource Types off-line
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Simon that there is no downside, really, and in fact the
> library community was much in favor of this extension. USMARC, our
> legacy
> standard, has in fact gone from the other direction--from physical
> objects
> to virtual ones, with only a few stretch marks to show for it.
> Diane
> >[log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>
> >> What's the down side of letting DC point to off-line resources
> (i.e.
> >> resources that aren't digitized)
> >
> >There is no real downside.
> >Here's an extended example
> >(based on data that I have to hand ...)
> >
> [snip Simon's lovely examples ...]
>
>
|