On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Rachel Heery wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, David Bearman wrote:
>
> > It sounds like we have lots of fun discussion for the Scheme Harmonization
> > Working Group which Carl and I are co-chairing precisely to work out these
> > issues and develop a way forward. I'll look forward to continuing this
> > there...
>
> Maybe I should wait for this discussion to move to the WG, but I think
> perhaps this is a different issue to 'scheme harmonisation'??
> I think 'metadata creator' needs to be considered in terms of 'where does
> administrative metadata go?'. Most implementations store a
> number of pieces of data referring to 'the metadata' to
> assist with metadata management.
>
> For example
>
> Date created
> Date to be reviewed
> IPR (of the metadata itself)
> Organisation that created metadata
>
> I would argue that this data is outside the scope of DC :-) It is
> structured according to a schema in its own 'namespace', its part of a
> different model. DC does have to have limits doesn't it?
Yes, but if these metadata records turn out to have similar properties
to documents (titles, creation dates, creator names, organisations
etc.), there's a strong case for using Dublin Core concepts instead of
re-inventing all these in an administrative metadata vocabulary.
(one persons metadata is another's data and all that...).
'Date-to-be-reviewed' is a good counter example though. So some -- but
not all -- administrative metadata might simply be more DC about the
'resource' that is the primary metadata.
Dan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|