Folks:
I liked Ricky's excellent list of "camp1" issues, and second her sense that
this is something that should be pursued by the group that is most
interested in them. However, I don't think it follows from that to assume
that this community of interest diverges that much from the larger one.
The issues of granularity that underlie many of the items on the "camp1"
list are those that libraries already deal with in their "legacy" catalogs,
albeit not completely successfully. The fact that other communities are not
as focussed on them at this stage says more about the longer term
experience of the library metadata community, than it does about the future
significance of those issues for everyone else.
It is absolutely essential that "camp1" and "camp2" continue to work
together at a higher level, even as the nitty gritties of the issues are
worked on somewhat more separately. I say that as someone with a foot in
both camps--culturally a "camper1", but relatively recently hanging out
with the "camper2" crowd (not always a comfortable place to be, I might
add--but very stimulating!).
Diane
>Dear colleagues,
>
>My sense that there were too many setbacks at the dc:DC workshop led
>to the following thoughts:
>
>There are and will continue to be two main camps in DC discussions:
>
> camp1) those who wish to use Dublin Core either for improved
> discovery of web resources or as common access points across
> varieties of web and non-web resources
>
> camp2) those who want to use Dublin Core as the basis for the
> development of sophisticated systems for very specific descriptive
> and functional requirements within a given domain
>
>Both camps seek interoperability across applications within their
>own camp -- and hope for interoperability between camps.
>
>
>Much of the recent discussion on meta2, in the working groups, and in
>the last workshops is carrying the work of camp2 forward. This is
>important work. However, continued active involvement by camp1
>participants may be frustrating, if not counter-productive.
>
>Should camp1 focus on camp1 needs and let camp2 seek the solutions to
>camp2 requirements in an attempt to prevent further blurring of the
>issues?
>
>
>Perhaps a camp1 interest group should be formed to:
> --monitor the definitions for DC version 1.1 to ensure camp1 gets
> what they need to move forward
> --address the collection/item and physical/digital distinctions
> --revisit the 1:1 requirement for camp1
> --consider the ramifications of converted rather than created DC
> records
> --focus on the issues that will assure camp1 interoperability
> --address needs for some qualification via the "dot.kludge" and
> encourage common practice (to be camp1 interoperable and still
> map in some way to camp2 practice)
> --explore crosswalks, Z39.50, and other means for searching across
> distinct resources
> --ensure cross-representation in both camps to keep them in-step
> --seek to ensure that some type of "dumbing-down" is possible to
> keep camp2 interoperable with camp1
> --help camp2 maintain alignment so that camp1 interoperability is
> possible across dissimilar camp2 implementations
>
>
>Camp1 can see the light at the end of the tunnel; why not push toward
>the light, rather than lingering as camp2 transforms the tunnel into
>a more elaborate structure to serve more complex needs?
>
>Do you think this would be a constructive development -- or is
>separation too risky?
>
>My post-DC6 thoughts,
>Ricky
>
>Ricky Erway, RLG
>
>
>To: [log in to unmask]
|