On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Bearman wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Hi,
Just back in Holland, to support this observation. The problem has
also been alluded to as inline or external metadata. This too is not
relevant for the 1:1 discussion. In either case you can point to it (well
in rdf/xml anyway, as I understood it). What makes 1:1 workable (for
machines) is that there is no ambiguity.
The example I gave at DC6 with source (nesting of metadata sets!) is not a
violation of 1:1, because it can easily be changed into pointers to those
metadata-sets.
Inheritance of metadata (child/parent) through the
relation(IsPartOf) is also an interesting case. I beleive it is not a
violation of 1:1.
What is a little disturbing however is that (for physical objects at
least, but also for electronic resources) we (I mean implementors)
actually want to point to the metadata and not to the resource. Strictly
speaking then, the URI does not point to the resource that is object of
the stated relationship.
In DC speak and documentation it is explicitly understood that pointers
(URIs) point to the resources and not to metadata about the resources.
This is probably cosmetics - but I still wanted to raise this issue here.
It disturbs me.
regards,
Titia
|