In response to a suggestion to use a repeated title field, like
<META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="la" CONTENT="Imitatio Christi">
<META NAME="DC.Title" LANG="en" CONTENT="Imitation of Christ">
for this resource
<URL:http://ccel.wheaton.edu/kempis/imitation/imitation.html> ,
James Weinheimer wrote:
> I personally do not understand this. I'll admit that there is a Latin
> title (we can always throw in an extra title) but as a user, I do not
> understand what this title means in relation to the document I'm looking
> at.
>
> The words "Imitatio Christi" do not exist in the resource. It is
> something that must be created by the metadata-cataloger. For the user
> to understand what he/she is looking at, should this title be labelled
> in a special manner?
Hmmm, I must admit that it has never occurred to me that a _user_
(i.e. someone who is trying to discover whether this particular
resource exists somewhere on the world wide web) should ever see
the metadata record.
But that if I understand Weinheimer question correctly, his concern is
how to make the metadata record make sense to a human reader.
>From my perspective (I am a programmer designing a metadata-aware
search engine), the metadata record is something read by the
search engine. The user then ask the search engine where he or
she can find a particular resource, and the search engine then
returns something (e.g. an URL) that takes the user to the
actual resource. I.e.: Only the computer sees the metadata.
What the user see is the resource.
So if it is likely that someone should search for this particular
religious classic using the original Latin title ("Imitatio Christi")
-- for instance because it is common to refer to it by that title in
other literature -- it makes sense to have it in the metadata along
with the modern English title.
And to respond to Weinheimer's final question (again seen from the
perspective of a search engine designer): No. There should be no
special labelling of the original Latin title. It is much easier
for the search engine to deal with that the whatever follows the
property "DC.Title" is something that should be searchable as title
-- instead of "knowing" that all sorts of clever syntaxes (e.g.:
DC.Title.Latin, DC.Title.Alternative, DC.Source.Original.Title.-
Of.Translated.Work, etc. is _also_ something that it is sensible to
treat as a title in the context of resource discovery.
- o -
Do we have a potential conflict here? Is some of our confusion about
things like 1:1 arising from the fact that we are designing _one_
framework that are intended to serve _two_ very different "users",
viz.:
1. Computer search engines (who are in general are designed with
little general intelligence and natural language capabilities,
and therefor just gets confused if data is represented through
too rich syntaxes).
2. Human readers (who has lots of natural language capabilities, and
therefore require that the metadata should render a complete,
accurate and faithful description of the resource).
Debating this question with four imaginary opponents (named "A", "B",
"C" and "D"), I got back the following four responses :-) :
A) You've got it backwards. The DCI is trying to create metadata
records for human readers. Your feeble attempts to appropriate
this great technology for your beastly Internet search engine
is misguided and without hope of succeeding. Go away.
B) Stay faithful to your original vision: Yes, the metadata record is
for the machine's eye only. Don't listen to those who try to
lead you astray.
C) How perceptive of you! These two usages are really incompatible
and trying to accommodate both in the DC framework is just like
trying to fit two feet into one shoe. And fitting two feet into
one shoe will hamper your forwards movement -- even if the shoe
is oversize.
D) You are utterly confused. There is no conflict. The DC is
equally well suited for both application if applied correctly.
You just have to learn how to apply it correctly.
Whereupon my imaginary opponents vanished in a puff of smoke,
unavailable for further banter, leaving me utterly and thoroughly
confused. So I turn to the mailing list for help:
Who is the primary "user" of the metadata record?
And if the answer is "both":
Is there or isn't there a conflict in the requirements?
TIA
--
- gisle hannemyr ( [log in to unmask] - http://home.sol.no/home/gisle/ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Use the Source, Luke. Use the Source." -- apologies to Obi-Wan Kenobi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
