JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-GENERAL Archives


DC-GENERAL Archives

DC-GENERAL Archives


DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-GENERAL Home

DC-GENERAL Home

DC-GENERAL  April 1999

DC-GENERAL April 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: 1:1 debate: What's the goal?

From:

"R. Wendler" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:45:18 -0400 (EDT)

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (94 lines)

Pretend you see an emoticon denoting calm, stability, and moderation.  
No flaming here, only earnest concern.

Like David, I also believe Jim is correct, but interestingly enough,
to my mind this supports the position that 1:1 is untenable.  

It is not that I am opposed in principle to 1:1, or that I believe people
should not be allowed to create DC records according to its precepts.
Rather, 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 (or at least in the DC most of us thought we were working
to develop).

Many communities already have cataloging rules, and one piece of
cataloging can serve only so many masters. If we want metadata
created in many environments to enrich the universe of DC metadata in aid
of resource discovery, DC cannot become overly prescriptive, cannot force
a "my way or the highway" approach to descriptive practice.

An earlier discussion on the 1:1 list revolved around whether every
fragment of a resource should be cataloged as a resource in its own right.
This thread made absolutely clear that there is no consensus on what 1:1
really means in practice.  In the end, people will describe what *they*
want to describe, for their purposes and the purposes of their user
community.  That means they may describe a TIFF of an Ansel Adams
photograph as having been created by Ansel Adams. Who's to say they're
wrong?  

DC should stay out of the cataloging rules business as much as possible,
in my opinion.  Because we cannot agree on what 1:1 actually means in
practice and cannot agree that DC data can, will, or must be created
according to whatever it means, I believe it should be dropped from the DC
discussions and carried forward, if at all, in cataloging rules
discussions independent of DC.

--Robin

Robin Wendler  ........................     work  (617) 495-3724	
Office for Information Systems  .......     fax   (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library  ...........     [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138  .............



On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, David Bearman wrote:

> At 03:08 PM 4/13/99 -0400, James Weinheimer wrote:
> "In the case of 1:1, that can mean very different things to different
> people. 
> For example, how do various people view an article in a magazine
> concerning medieval art with 10 pictures?
> a library cataloger may view the magazine (which contains hundreds of
> volumes, and thousands of articles) as 1 item.
> An indexer may believe that the article with ten pictures is 1 item.
> A slide cataloger may believe that each picture is one item.
> A specialist indexer (e.g. the Index of Christian art) may believe that
> each picture is made up of dozens of separate parts (swords, draperies,
> trees, etc.)" 
> 
> I believe Jim is correct and this was the reason I proposed originally the
> "1:1 rule" in Helsinki - since each of these communities will make (has
> made) metadata corresponding to the "one" that they see, it is important
> that the data in that metadata cluster refer to that one thing (whether the
> journal, the issue, the image, the iconographic subjects). Then each
> metadata cluster declare an appropriate "relation" to other metadata.
> 
> The alternative, I believe, is to devise or adopt a set of cataloging rules
> that everyone must use, but 1) DC is not the kind of 'system' in which
> cataloging rules are likely to be followed and 2) we would sacrifice
> getting lots of pre-existing datasets translated into DC if we insisted a
> given cataloging practice. Far better, I believe, to recognize that every
> community wants to describe different things and to ask each to then
> describe one thing in one instance of a DC element set.
> 
> But I think this discussion should be continued on the 1:1 list...
> David 
> 
> 
> 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
> 




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

February 2024
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
March 2020
February 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager