Simon Pockley wrote:
> The notion of agency, as described by David Bearman,
> is not just about discovery
> it can also be a vital component
> of the machine generation/compilation/re-presentation of resources,
> when resources are built `on the fly'.
>
> Just as an interpretation of DC.Rights
> will some day trigger some form of transaction processing
> - or mediation, so, something like DC.Agent
> will inevitably be seen as more than just a name
> of a publisher, creator or contributor.
> Perhaps, in this case,
> it is the difference between a passive and an active element.
>
> Does anyone else think that this is important
> to the notion of agency?
You may be right, I'm not arguing against it, but such a notion should not
become a hindrance for reconciliation of DC with Z39.50, "which has
basically adopted DC as the cross discipline searching set, but
has decided to conflate the three agent elements into an abstract element
they call NAMES".[quote from a post by Stu on agent types].
--
Frank A. Roos
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|