Dear Simon,
Thanks.
and yes, the practical question is real, but it has a very practical answer
I think - for those who recognize the difference between different
manifestations, that difference will be recorded in discrete metadata sets
because it has significance to them. For those who don't recognize the
difference, there is no point trying to tell them to record it, since they
don't see it. Hence, your average cataloger is delighted to record that
they have copy of the first edition of "x", while the rare book cataloger
records that ists the second printing and that folio page 16 has a specific
mark...
It doesn't matter to a third party describing a print if I know in my
domain that the print of the Ansel Adams photograph made by Ansel Adams is
different from that made by the current holder of his negative. If that
person doesn't know that this distinction can matter, they will not revcord
it. 1:1 or no 1:1.
So the "rule" as it were, is to record that which you know to be
meaningfully different is discrete metadata sets with explicit relations.
David
(PS, for Priscilla...this is what I think)
At 09:05 AM 1/29/99 +0800, Simon Cox wrote:
>
>
>James Weinheimer wrote:
>>
>> My question is who should be the "creator". According to your
>> definition, Leonardo can no longer be the creator of anything except the
>> physical items he produced. If this is so, why is Mark Twain any
>> different? With a newly published work of Huck Finn published by
>> Cambridge University Press, why don't we put the press as the creator?
>>
>> The fact is, that's a very strange way of looking at it, and catalogs
>> don't work that way. Of course, someone may want Cambridge's version of
>> Huck Finn--but that doesn't mean that Cambridge is the creator.
>
>This is where the IFLA model perspective helps:
>
>Mark Twain conceived the abstract work "Huck Finn"
>Mark Twain is responsible for the expression of Huck Finn as a Novel
> (I think there is a stage version too which was created by someone
>else)
>CUP published one particular edition of the Novel form of Huck Finn
>One copy of the CUP edition of the Novel of Huck Finn is found in your
>collection.
>
>Thus, the metadata for the CUP edition should point, through
>a Relation, to metadata for the novel, which in turn might point
>to metadata for the work. All these metadatas are logically distinct,
>but coupled through the Relation pointers. Thus, there is a burden
>on the creator of metadata for the derived stuff to ensure that the
>metadata for the source stuff exists, or if necessary, create some.
>Some systems will allow the metadata for all these _different_ bits
>of stuff to be stored in one place - I think the XML syntax for RDF
>allows this - see Eric's take on the admin metadata recently posted,
>for example.
>
>This raises some significant questions, however:
>(1) the DC community must decide how much of the "pure" perspective
>of the IFLA model we take on-board (1-to-1 deliberations).
>(2) is maintaining all these separate packets of metadata practical
>in a _discovery_ context? (clearly "Mark Twain" is a useful piece of
>information for discovery for just about any bit of stuff derived
>from Huck Finn). In a sytem built according to the IFLA model,
>some important metadata might only be visible through following
>some pretty extended Relation chains. I worry that the
>infrastructure and tools will be lagging years behind the model,
>so meantime implementors are likely to continue to kludge away.
>--
>Best Simon
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\simon.cox2.vcf"
>
David Bearman
President
Archives & Museum Informatics
2008 Murray Ave, Suite D
Pittsburgh, PA 15217 USA
Phone: +1 412 422 8530
Fax: +1 412 422 8594
[log in to unmask]
http://www.archimuse.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|