I would suggest that anyone who takes up this challenge might want to work
through a couple of examples, such as the ones used in the various
arguments on this topic. It's a natural for the guidelines document, so be
aware I'll be watching for it!
Diane
>What Paul said.
>
>1:1 grew out of a need for guiding principles. There have been a number of
>good examples of how it fails, but as Ricky points out, even those who
>oppose it as a *rule* probably can buy into it as a guide.
>
>Is there anyone who would care to distill the arguments into a principle
>that can promote good practice while acknowledging that blind adherence that
>forces us to do silly things (like promoting a person who scans a photograph
>to the same level as one who took it) is inimical to good retrieval?
>
>
>stu
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ricky Erway [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 1:36 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: 1:1 debate
>>
>> REPLY TO 04/22/99 07:20 FROM [log in to unmask]: RE: 1:1 debate
>>
>> Paul said
>> "1:1 is an idea, not a law."
>>
>> I like the idea (and more often than not practice it). I just hate
>> the law. It seems to me to be the only law in all of Dublin Core
>> land. But if I can populate DC elements describing two resources
>> (photo and scan) in the same "record" then, hey, it's not a problem!
>>
>> I presume you are working up a way to group the elements. What gets
>> confusing is when the JPEG image is part of the HTML document to
>> which the metadata is attached and the original Adams hangs on a wall
>> someplace. The 1:1 chanters make people afraid to describe the one
>> on the wall in a 'record' attached to the other.
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|