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
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
|