On Oct 28, 10:16am, Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
> As for the idea that we will take an irrecoverable hit politically if we
> change now--hogwash! Many years of observation (and participation) in the
> maintenance process for the MARC standard has convinced me that there is no
> time like the present to fix what doesn't work. The important piece is to
> make sure there's an upgrade path for those who have data "the old way,"
> and this is clearly the case for the three-element to one we're proposing
> here.
I think this is an important point Diane.
It is interesting to see the way that the need for stability
acts to resist change, when change is our only certainly.
1. Many of the DC. Elements will continue to be unstable
because they do not anticipate the changes in
perception, management and use of resources
that are now emerging
as a consequence of metadata deployment.
Unless D.C. metadata is flexible enough
to accommodate frequent evolutionary changes
in perception and application,
then it is likely to become a submerging, rather than an emerging,
standard.
2. The term `Agent' may lead to confusion.
In our management of film and interactive media collections
`Agents' have a mumber of different meanings
as possible contributors.
Other postings have dealt with 007s
but we also recognise Casting and Crewing `Agents'
as a species of contributor
sometimes found in a film's credits.
`Credits' are now more freqently used
to decribe the possible allocation of micropayment
when it comes to the use of the resource and the continuing interest
of the contributor, publisher and creator.
Unfortunately, in film, copyright is complex.
In an electronic environment
an `Intelligent Agent'
may have to be employed to manage these allocations.
We could end up with DC.Agent="Agent"
--
Simon Pockley - Cinemedia (http://www.cinemedia.net)
3 Treasury Place Melbourne Australia [voice] 61 3 96511510
([log in to unmask])
|