2) The next of these relations was
IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor.
We recognize that while some metadata records will be
created by the
authors of the information resource they describe, most will
be created by
others such as librarians, publishers, database creators
etc. and that the
authenticity of the metadata is crucial to assessing it
(see:
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06bearman.html for extensive
discussion of
the rationale).
You asked:
>IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor, IsOwnerOf/HasOwner --
Aren't
>these agent roles rather than relationship types? If
information
>resources and agents are indistinguishable and what is
proposed here
>are appropriately new relation types, then we need a heck
of lot
>of other relations (e.g., IsAuthorOf, IsEditorOf,
IsTranslatorOf,
>Donated, WasKeyGripFor, SangInTheShower, etc.) What did
you authors
>intend by adding just these two (or four) relation types?
The value of the "creator" element (whether or not DC
accepts my proposal
regarding Agents) is the creator of the information
resource, not the
creator of the metadata. Assuming we have a creator-type (or
better yet, an
Agent-type) that points to a role vocabulary, we would be
selecting roles
to describe the relation between the named agent/creator and
the resource,
not between the named agent/creator and the metadata.
Whoa David! Either I'm missing the point here or am I
seeing you going down the meta-metadata black hole. I thought we had all
come to the point that we understood that data and metadata were
indistinguishable except in context. I'm not understanding why the
"metadata" is not just another resource with a "creator" (and lots of other
stuff) like any other resource. Why do you need some special "metadata"
author relationship with creator seems to be enough? Please help me.
Carl
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|