I'm not really sure that extending the DC names two or three levels deep
adds more to your DC repository. All this information is going to be
held in specialist databases (outside of your DC Repository) anyway. I
liken it to using a metal detector to find metal underground, then using
shovel to get the metal out. You wouldn't expect the metal detector to
be useful for digging the metal out, would you?
One way around the problem of searching wildcarded DC field names could
be for search mechanisms to treat "DC.Title" as including
"DC.Title.Alternative" etc. Do we really need special Title fields? I
mean *really* need them?. We'll end up with a McDonald's data repository
- you'll have fries with everything. "I'll have DC.Title.Fries and
DC.Creator.Fries, oh and could you throw in a DC.Format.Fries too
please..." "Do you want DC.Title.Alternate.Fries with that?"
IMHO, DC should be used as a "here's something - can you use it?"
resource discovery tool, rather than "sorry, couldn't find anything
matching your unintentionally too-specific search criteria." How should
I have known to look in DC.Title.Short instead of DC.Title.Alternate?
Why couldn't I have just searched in DC.Title and found what I wanted.
The special case of DC.Source.Creator is easy enough to synthesise by
finding the DC.Creator of the DC.Source. DC.Creator.PersonalName is just
the same as DC.Creator when the creator is a person, isn't it? A
corporate name shouldn't look like a personal name, eg "Microsoft
Corporation" is different looking to "Smith, John", and there's no
individual called "Corporation, Microsoft" or "Microsoft, Corporation".
Besides, in many countries, a company name would be "Schnell GmBH" or
"Quick Inc." or "Zoom Pty. Ltd. (ACN 008 123 456)".
More comments follow.
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> Alex Satrapa wrote:
> > The user/reasearcher may ask "Show me photos by Ansel Adams". You might
> > parse this like Ask Jeeves does - compare the question to the structure
> > of questions you have answers to. Or you might have a smart interface
> > that recognises "Show me X by Y" to mean "discover resources of DC.Type
> > X, with DC.Creator Y, along with a list of resources based on those
> > originals".
>
> I don't understand this.
>
> Someone marks up the resource with "DC<something>Creator=Y". How is
> the _search_engine_ to understand that this particular markup is a
> specialization/variation of DC.Creator=Y? Because unless that
> particular relationship first is recognized by the search engine,
> there is no way you can construct any sort of clever user interface
> as you suggest.
No no no no... that's not where I was going.
Here's the metadata for the digital image of the photo:
DC.Title = "Digitised Version of Sunset over Mt. Whatsitsname"
DC.Creator = "Jo Bloggs"
DC.Source = "Sunset over Mt. Whatsitsname"
and for the original photo:
DC.Title = "Sunset over Mt. Whatsitsname"
DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel"
> And to make the search engine recognise how these sort of relationships
> arise from the dot-notation is a not a trivial task.
The relationship is quite simple - the resources the user is looking for
are the ones with DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel". The other resources are
the ones with DC.Source equal to the DC.Title (or other recordkeeping
notation) of the resources with DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel".
> Simon Cox:
> DC.Source.Creator="Ansel Adams"
Derived work:
DC.Source = "Original Work"
Original Work:
DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel"
Saves confusion. Yes, costs a little more processing time.
> Rebecca Guenther:
> http://www.loc.gov/marc/dcqualif.html
> DC.Creator.Personalname="Adams, Ansel"
What's wrong with just DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel"? The scheme can
define the person/corporate body naming scheme used.
> ROADS qualifiers:
> http://www.roads.lut.ac.uk/Metadata/DC-Qualifiers.html
> DC.Creator.Name="A[nsel] Adams"
What's wrong with just DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel"? Or DC.Creator =
"Ansel Adams"? Or DC.Creator = "TheCompany Inc."?
> Performing Arts Data Service:
> DC.Creator.1="Adams, Ansel"
> DC.Creator.Role.1="photographer"
Isn't the role of the creator implicit from the type of creation?
ie: DC.Creator = "Adams, Ansel", DC.Type = "image", DC.Format = "11x7
color photograph" ==> The resource is a photo => the creator is a
photographer (by definition if not by trade).
> Also take into account that the "DC.Creator" property is
> also used with the dot-notation to convey information that
> does not identify the principial creator, but instead gives some
> additional information about he, she or it, e.g.:
>
> Rebecca Guenther:
> DC.Creator.CorporateName="Ansel Adams Foundation"
Wouldn't the Ansel Adams Foundation belong in DC.Rights, rather than
DC.Creator? If not, then wouldn't the Ansel Adams foundation belong in
DC.Contributor? If not then what about reducing it to an entry in the
Ansel Adams biography?
> Roads qualifiers:
> DC.Creator.Keywords="View Camera"
Doesn't the type and format of a resource indicate how it was made?
After all, a 18x18 colour plate is only going to come from an
astronomical camera, and not a Konica happy snapper. The means of
production isn't always relevant to a resource (do you care whether a
GIF image was created using a Pentium or a Macintosh?)
Or what about DC.Relation = "(WithMechanism) View Camera"?
Failing all else, we could get more specific about DC.Type and
DC.Format. For example the format could include
DC.Format = "18x18 colour plate"
DC.Format = "Astrophotography, Supercooled Glass Plate"
DC.Type = "image"
> Kunze's HTML examples:
> DC.Creator.Writer="Hecht, Ben"
If the creation is a written work then isn't the creator, by definition,
a writer?
Do we *need* these specialisations? Aren't they just adding unneccesary
complication to DC? The more specific you get in your Metatagging, the
closer you're bringing DC to MARC, and the less reason you really have
to try using DC instead of MARC.
Regards
Alex
--
Alex Satrapa
tSA Consulting Group Pty Ltd.
Canberra, Australia
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|