Dear Peter,
When you and others raised this question in July, you did not receive a
negative response from the museum community, you received a reply from me
that was an effort, obviously one that failed, to distinguish between
object and subject. Those of us who deal with physical things are prone to
trying to make this distinction. Making the distinction ensures that
'Types' for digital surrogates of physical things would be the Type of the
surrogate, not of the thing. Using the 1:1 principle, it is important that
digital files that are representations of physical things be described as
digital files...
David
At 06:21 PM 8/10/98 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>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 ...]
>
>
>
>
>
David Bearman
President
Archives & Museum Informatics
5501 Walnut St., Suite 203
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
tel. +1-412-683-9775; fax +1-412-683-7366
http://www.archimuse.com
|