(sorry to be a pedant - I've changed the subject to something that resembles what
this topic has now become)
Titia, others:
In order to overcome the problem of linking to a parent/relation's metadata set
instead of the actual object, perhaps we could do something like:
<META NAME="DC.Source" SCHEME="URL" CONTENT="(type=surrogate)
http://www.my.domain/surrogate/eiffel_tower_dc.html">
And define the "surrogate" type as indicating that the target of the DC.Source
link is a surrogate metadata set for something that cannot be accessed
electronically.
Alternately, we would need to find a way of "linking" to physical objects in such
a way that we know where to find the metadata for it (if such a set exists).
I have yet to be swayed from the "1:1" argument - which from my perspective is
simply about what gets assigned it's own standalone metadata set and what
doesn't. Some physical objects will *need* their own surrogate metadata holder,
because they'll be referenced from all over the place. I'm sure there's more than
one work out there which references the Eiffel Tower in some way, shape or form.
Which reminds me - the Eiffel tower was originally erected as a center piece for
some exposition, wasn't it? If my understanding of history is correct, the Eiffel
tower was supposed to be a temporary structure? Much the same way that Dublin
Core was supposed to be an experimental/under development cataloguing tool...
Regards,
Alex Satrapa
Titia van der Werf wrote:
> 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
|