On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Jul,Erik wrote:
> Simon: I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic. Would you please
> explain, in the instance of an "event," exactly what the metadata is
> pointing to? When the event has passed, what is there that the metadata
> can reference? Please explain this in terms of the 1:1 principle?
The notion of creating metadata for an event in isolation is perhaps, in
most cases, not sensible. Where that event is in effect a focal point
around which a large number of other resources are grouped (various
recordings as surrogates of a live performance 'event', the transformation
of a building over time through various change of use 'events', etc.) it
becomes more obvious; the intangible 'event' is required in order to give
the surrogates meaning.
In many ways, this appears a logical fulfilment of the 1:1 model, rather
than any attempt to stretch it.
> If the event is recorded, then is it not the *recording* that is
> described by the metadata?
No. If an event is recorded (me making a video recording of Stu speaking
at a conference), then the recording is a resource in its own right. That
resource is also a surrogate of the 'event'; Stu speaking at the
conference, and/or the conference itself. For those who just love creating
metadata records, you could presumably EVEN consider another event here;
the RECORDING event, which occurs within the time frame delimited by the
conference event.
Paul
== dr. paul miller ============== [log in to unmask] ==
collections manager, archaeology data service, king's manor
york, YO1 7EP, UK tel: +44 (0)1904 43 3954
== http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ ========= fax: +44 (0)1904 43 3939 ==
|