At 11:43 AM 5/1/99 -0500, Gary E. Masters wrote:
>
>"Diane I. Hillmann" wrote:
>
>> I think the idea is that the relationship of the organization to the
>> document or object, not the relationship of the organization to the
>> contributor, is what belongs in the metadata for the document.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure it's always clear-cut. In the sciences,
WHERE research was done turns out to be a useful bit of information for
resource discovery. Unfortunately, this is usually coded as "author
affiliation" -- that is, who the author worked for at the time the article
was written -- but this is how it is thought of in that world.
Institutions, laboratories, research sites -- they all have role in the
direction of science. I like the idea of getting this information into the
metadata in the way Diane describes, but I think we'll find that there's a
whole searching public that thinks of this as "author affiliation", not
"research affiliation." The metadata can't actually correct the culture,
even when it's so obviously wrong. ;-)
----------------------------------------------
Karen Coyle [log in to unmask]
University of California Digital Library
http://www.kcoyle.net 510/987-0567
----------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|