Clarification of the implementation is something all of us agree is needed.
I believe that the concept of "record" is and has been getting in the way
of clarity here. In Helsinki we banned uch talk, using set instead. The
operation significance is that some group of metadata elements need to
describe the thing in hand. Another group can describe another thing. They
are linked by relation. The examples I've seen of people whop are doing
what they think is not 1:1 are ok as 1:1 except for not pointing to the
other set. This is to say they contain two groupings of metadata (generally
in one 'record') but don't point to each other.
I'm a hopelessly bad cataloguer and won't try to do this, but my guess is
that examples will clarify this easily and look forward to them. In
addition, when we can move to xml/rdf, it becomes moot.
What will remain is the need to have definite, known, versions of DC and
stages of approval for proposals. So the outcome of DC6 shoul be heartening
- we're going to implement a process for all decisions about DC to be made.
David
set At 04:25 PM 11/5/98 -0500, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Bearman wrote:
>
>> Prior to DC6 the DC Policy ASdvisory Committee we struck a Process
>> sub-committee which will report out a formal pocess for moving all
>> proposals from working group through sanctioned practice. We expect to
>> hasve such processes adopted by the end of 1998 and will be implementing
>> them for working group proposals from previous meetings and for the future.
>> At present no DC document except the rfc has that status.
>> However, that does not change the fact that 1:1 was agreed at Helsinki in
>> the plenary. That decision has not in any way been reversed by DC6. The
>> break-out whioch discussed 1:1 proposed clarifying its application.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>What I heard at DC5 in Helsinki was certain people who agreed, which was
>not what I call general consensus. Many of us were not completely clear as
>to what its implications were, but on the surface it seemed as if it did
>not make sense for some of the material we deal with. As Robin said, the
>subgroup that met at DC6 as "1:1" wanted to get clarification on what it
>really meant and develop guidelines to use it or not use it. If it meant
>what was described in Alex's original message (excerpted below), where one
>could not describe any details about the original photograph (such as the
>photographer's name) in a metadata record for the digitized version, but
>one has to create multiple records, that this will be unusable and
>confusing in our environments with big digitization projects. I think
>Renato's characterization of the situation below is more accurate. More
>later on this issue when the working group is formed.
>
>Rebecca
>
>>From Alex's original message:
>
>THE 1:1 ISSUE
>
>There's an argument that goes way back (DC-5[1], I believe settled it)
>about
>what actually gets allocated metadata. The term used to describe the
>current
>philosophy is "1:1" - that is, you allocate a metadata record only for the
>information/concept/artistic piece "in hand".
>
>A scanned image of a photo of a building will have metadata relating only
>to
>that scanned image. This metadata will point to a metadata record for the
>original photo (probably a surrogate record, since you can't put the photo
>in
>an electronic catalogue). There will be a third metadata record for the
>actual
>building itself.
>
>These three records would be linked (both ways) through DC.Source and
>DC.Relation, so anyone looking for the works of a particular architect
>could
>find the record for the building, and work back from there (or forwards,
>as
>the case may be) to the record for the scanned image, which they can view
>immediately.
>
>> At 01:50 PM 11/5/98 +1000, Renato Iannella wrote:
>> >
>> >On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Alex Satrapa wrote:
>> >
>> >> THE 1:1 ISSUE
>> >>
>> >> There's an argument that goes way back (DC-5[1], I believe settled it)
>> about
>> >> what actually gets allocated metadata. The term used to describe the
>> current
>> >
>> >The 1:1 issue was raised and discussed at DC5, but never sanctioned
>> >by the DC community as *the* only way to deploy metadata.
>> >The issue was again raised at DC6 with similar outcome.
>> >
>> >Cheers.... Renato
>> >
>> >------------------
>> >Dr Renato Iannella http://www.dstc.edu.au/renato/
>> >DSTC Pty Ltd phone://61.7/3365.4310
>> >Uni Qld, 4072, AUSTRALIA fax://61.7/3365.4311
>> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> >
>
>
>
>
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
|