On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, David Bearman wrote:
> If I create DC metadata for a book, the creator element, according to our
> definition, references the book.
True. But Carl's right as well, in that the line between 'metadata' and
'resource' is rarely as clear as in the catalogue record/book example you
give.
A museum collections management record, for example, is metadata for an
object in the collection. It's also a creative work (of fiction, in some
cases...! ;-) ) in its own right.
In the fuzzy, hazy, world in which we operate, where _I_ certainly would
be hard-pressed to definitively label any of my stuff as a 'resource' or
'metadata', it is, perhaps, easier to consider the single concept of a
creator (or agent, or whatever) of 'stuff' (to steal terms from Godfrey).
If I, Paul Miller, am describing a BOOK by Carl Lagoze, the Creator is
Carl Lagoze. If I, Paul Miller, am describing the catalogue record for
that book by David Bearman, then the Creator is David Bearman.
I've not had to decide whether or not I'm describing 'data' or 'metadata'
(because both book and record are in some cases 'data' and in others
'metadata', depending upon perspective), and use of Title and other
elements allows unambiguous identification of that which I'm describing
('Carl's great book' or 'Dave's Catalogue record of "Carl's great book"').
Paul
-- dr. paul miller - interoperability focus - [log in to unmask] --
u. k. office for library and information networking (ukoln)
tel: +44 (0)1482 466890 fax: +44 (0)1482 465531
---------------------------- http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/interop-focus/ --
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|