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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|