Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
>
> Robin Wendler writes,
>
> > ... I believe that 1:1 falls clearly and precisely into the realm of
> > cataloging rules, which, as David rightly points out, are unlikely to be
> > followed in DC ...
> > DC should stay out of the cataloging rules business as much as possible,
> > in my opinion.
>
> Is it then not necessary to more clearly point out the limitations this
> imposes on attainable results of DC projects? Esp. what it means for
> interoperability.
Interoperability? Throw that outdated notion out with the bathwater.
1:1 is "obviously" too hard for "normal" people to understand. So we
shouldn't recommend that people follow the 1:1 rule. After all, it's
only the intellectual elite amongst us that can understand the abstract
concepts such as "who created this version?". Everyone else in the world
is going to be concerned about the underlying work.
It's obvious to me that if someone's looking for "the mona lisa", then
they only want to find the original painting, and if they actually want
to see it with their own two eyes, then they can afford the $2000 round
trip to Europe to see it. Those members of the population who can't
afford a trip to Europe for the sake of viewing a single painting,
obviously aren't going to be satisfied with facsimiles or
representations in other forms.
Like it or not, if you're going to be setting up a Metadata Repository,
you're going to have to impose some rules about what goes where, and how
to write it there.
> And what can people expect from the presence of DC metadata
> and what not, and questions like that. My feeling is that people tend
> to have unrealistic expectations, esp. if they lack cataloging background.
> True, cataloging rules ARE not always being followed even in library
> networks. The larger an operation gets, the more acute grows the need
> for strict and detailed rules - but the more difficult becomes their
> enforcement.
If we're hoping for DC to be a globally adopted "standard", then we're
going to have to be really strict, at least until we have machines to do
the metadata allocation for us (a task my company is working on).
> > 1:1 ... should be dropped from the DC
> > discussions and carried forward, if at all, in cataloging rules
> > discussions independent of DC.
> We are doing that now in a joint American-German project of translating
> the AACR into German. It was found that AACR focuses more on the whole
> of a "work" (whatever the definition) whereas German rules focus on its
> parts.
Whereas DC repositories are going to be more focussed on what mattered
at the time to the metadata author. 1:1 is pretty much a moot point when
you consider that a hundred metadata authors will create a hundred and
one different DC sets for one resource. The problem we'll face in the
future is identifying the "discipline" behind a particular repository,
and which "discipline" the researcher is interested in.
I doubt that a classical architecture student would gain much benefit
from a metadata repository maintained by a Science Fiction book club.
Alex
--
Alex Satrapa
tSA Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
Canberra, Australia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|