If we're going to combine the three fields, why not combine them all into the
DC.Contributor field? The content of the field can be the name, specification, etc
of the people/organisations/machines responsible for creation of the document in
its current form, with a supporting field (scheme, perhaps?) providing an optional
level of filtering for the type of responsibility the contributor had.

The simplistic searcher would just type, for example "ACME Data Logger" into the
DC.Contributor field, to find all documents produced using the ACME Data Logger
series of products. A more advanced searcher would type "ACME Data Logger" into
the DC.Contributor field (of the search form), and select "Collector" from the
"ROLE" pop up menu (or multi-select pick list, or whatever). Does this allow for
the scheme to be used under DC Simple and DC Qualified?.

Having just one field (which can appear many times) saves an extra bit of effort
in deciding which person/organisation/machine gets stuck in which field.

Regards,
Alex Satrapa

David Bearman wrote:

> There are two issues here I believe.
>
> The first can be dealt with relatively easily - that is what we call a
> person or organization involved in the creation to dissemination process.
> I'm sure we can all agree on a term - responsibility statement is one that
> has wide use too.
>
> The second issue is more substantive. In looking over any recent list of
> history of sites I've visited, I find few in which the "creator" is obvious
> or relevant to retrieval and few in which the concept "publisher" truly
> applies. Most are demonstrating the evolution of the medium and growing
> importance of many other roles. The list we dismissed (I drafted it to be
> shorter but in the end we felt it had no advantages over a more
> authoritative list such as USMARC Relators) had all the following, roughly
> in order of the timing of their contribution:
>
> Creator: Responsible for the intellectual content of the information resource
>  - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Artist, Author,
> Composer, Correspondent, Film Director, Illustrator, Photographer,
> Sculptor, Speechwriter
>
> Technician: Responsible for operating the technology which creates the
> manifestation of the information resource
>  - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Cameraman,
> Draftsman, Radiographer, Scan Operator, Sound Technician
>
> Device: A machine or instrument responsible for gathering data
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Data Acquisition
> System, Instrument, Process, Software Program
>
> Presenter: Responsible for rendition of the information resource
>  - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Actor,
> Anchor(person), Conductor, Orchestra, Speaker,
>
> Auspices/venues: The institutional location of a performance, installation,
> exhibition, and as such a sponsoring host
> - a general term for such domain specific venues as gallery, museum,
> performance hall, stage etc. (as in Symphonies performed at Avery Fischer
> Hall)
>
> Editor: Responsible for selection and/or organization of the content of an
> information resource
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Gatekeeper, Indexers,
> Mixer, Producer
>
> Designer: Responsible for the presentation of the content elements of an
> information resource
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Graphic Artist,
> Interface Designer, Software Engineer, Typographer
>
> Compiler: Responsible for the assemblage or collection of the information
> resource
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Archivist, Bulletin
> Board keeper, Collator, Librarian, List Owner, Subject Gateway
>
> Financier: responsible for funding the creation or distribution of the
> information resource - a general term for such domain specific concepts as
> commissioning agency, funding agency, patron, sponsor etc. (as in reports
> funded by NEH or sculptures commissioned by the de Medici's)
>
> Manufacturer: Responsible for the physical production of the information
> resource
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Duplicating Service,
> Foundry, Printer
>
> Issuing Agency: Responsible for making the "first copy" of an information
> resource available
> - a general term for such domain specific concepts as Film Studio,
> Publisher, University Press
>
> Distributor: Responsible for disseminating or delivering the information
> resource
> -a general term for such domain specific concepts as Aggregator,
> Broadcasting Network, Dissemination System, Private Data Network, 'Push'
> Service/Profile
>
> The problem is that if the metadata writer must choose whether to put a
> name into creator, publisher or contributor and could place it under any of
> these as with most pages on organizationally sponsored sites which are not
> really authored by the organization, not actually published and contributor
> may be the role assigned to the organization or to the person who wrote the
> content, then every user or system designer needs to be aware of the
> requirement to look in all three places in every search. If effect, they
> need to look in a unified agent/responsibility location anyway.
>
> David
>
> At 12:23 PM 10/25/98 +0000, P Burnhill wrote:
> >Lou, I am not given to unprovoked agreement with you, but here I feel
> >provoked:
> >
> >1. I support the collapse of the creator and contributor field into one
> >
> >The term 'Responsiblility' (or responsible) is preferable to 'Agent'.  An
> >agent acts on behalf of someone/thing.  What is needed here is attribution
> >of the persons/organisation for the work in question.  I believe that is
> >the use made in (intelligent) software agents.
> >
> >This is not a new issue in descriptive metadata, and the library world
> >(AACR) uses the term 'responsibility' in a useful (and successful) way.
> >
> >2. I hestitate about the bundling of the publisher field into the
> >'responsibility' field
> >
> >The act of publishing is special, and not at all the same as
> >creation/authorship.  Publishers add to the process but do not assume the
> >rights of authors.  This field is required in descriptive metadata to help
> >someone who wishes to acquire the work or some rights associated with the
> >work.
> >
> >The publication area (field) also embraces dissemination.  To disseminate
> >is to part of the act of publication.  If an author publishes his/her own
> >work then s/he is (additionally) acting as publisher - but the roles are
> >distinct.
> >
> >This 'publication' area is also a place for terms of availability.  Indeed
> >the area is about availability.  And, a given work can be made available
> >(be published) in several ways - without necessarily changing the
> >'responsibility' for the work.  [were it to do so, then there would be
> >cause to consider that a new work existed, for which there was additional
> >responsibility.]
> >
> >3. When these issues were discussed as part of the the UK Computer Files
> >Cataloguing Group, back in 1987 before we had the benefit of calling the
> >fields metadata, we bundled the set of fields discussed above into
> >'Identification & Availability'. We recognised that the AACR world had
> >done a reasonable job in that area, although it didnt have the magical
> >'relation'  field for defining the identification of works.
> >
> >[Incidentally, the other areas were 'Subject & Content', which also
> >included fields concerning how the work had come about as well as what it
> >was about, 'Characteristics of the Media', and 'Management & Access', the
> >latter being a bit of a collect-all field.  Later some of us also came to
> >realise that it might be useful to have 'Archival responsibility' as an
> >additional, and perhaps mandatory, field in which each and every
> >person/holding a copy of the work could state either what they done about
> >ensuring an archival copy or point to the organisation that had such.
> >And so it goes .. ]
> >
> >4. While I am on the subject of identification, please note that the
> >Directors of ISSN centres have been discussing a redefinition of
> >'seriality', to 'ongoing publication'.  This should assist the progressive
> >use of the ISSN numbering infrastructure for (digital) information objects
> >of appropriate granularity.
> >
> >best wishes
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, The Laptop at Burnard Towers wrote:
> >
> >> At 17:51 23/10/98 -0700, Liz Parrott wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I'm a programmer in Silicon Valley.  Here "agent" means something very
> >> >specific.  It means a process a user creates to carry out a request
> either once
> >> >or at regular intervals or under specific conditions.  Sometimes it's
> called an
> >> >intelligent agent.  It's not unlike a Dialog Alert.
> >>
> >> I's say that it's usually only a good idea to appropriate specialist
> >> terminology like this when you can be fairly sure that there won't be any
> >> kind of interference effect between the two fields of discourse concerned,
> >> i.e. in this case, if those for whom an agent is a piece of software are
> >> unlikely to have to deal with those for whom an agent is a category of
> >> information. It seems to me highly unlikely that these sets of language
> >> users are disjoint, as witness Ms Parrott's interesting comment cited
> above.
> >>
> >> Without wishing to take sides on whether or not Bearman's proposal is a
> good
> >> one, I'd strongly support renaming the proposed unified field to avoid this
> >> confusion. Far better, in my view, to appropriate a term from the library
> >> community, where most of these categories seem equivalent to the AACR
> >> concept of "statement of responsibility". So why not call this field
> >> "Responsible"?
> >>
> >> (anyone who spots in this an attempt to get the TEI Header's  <respStmt>
> >> into the Dublin core, is dead right)
> >>
> >> Lou Burnard
> >> >From the Laptop at Burnard Towers
> >>
> >>
> >
> >********** ********* ******** ******* ****** ***** **** *** ** *
> >
> >  Peter Burnhill
> >  Director, EDINA & Head, Data Library
> >
> >  Edinburgh University Data Library
> >  Main Library Building
> >  George Square
> >  Edinburgh EH8 9LJ
> >  Scotland, UK
> >
> >  tel: +44 (0) 131 650 3301            fax: +44 (0) 131 650 3308
> >  Email: [log in to unmask]           URL http://edina.ed.ac.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> David Bearman
> President
> Archives & Museum Informatics
> 2008 Murray Ave, Suite D
> Pittsburgh, PA 15217 USA
> Phone: +1 412 422 8530
> Fax: +1 412 422 8594
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.archimuse.com