[log in to unmask] wrote:
> IMHO we're a little 'out-of-band' with a field like Creator.date_of_birth.
> Haven't we come around to understanding that the creator's date of birth
> doesn't really belong in the resource ... it belongs in some sort of
> authority (metadata) record for the creator using an extended metadata
> schema (say vcard). If you think about it, putting date of birth (of the
> creator) in the metadata (of the resource) breaks the 1:1 rule.
So 1:1 has been accepted as a rule?
Also, the date of birth doesn't belong in a record? How about this
search result from our catalog?
1 SMITH JOHN
9 SMITH JOHN 1580-1631
17 SMITH JOHN 1652-1742
18 SMITH JOHN 1747-1807
19 SMITH JOHN 1752-1809
21 SMITH JOHN 1798-1888
25 SMITH JOHN 1883-1964
26 SMITH JOHN 1924
32 SMITH JOHN 1927
33 SMITH JOHN 1938 OR 9
34 SMITH JOHN A
35 SMITH JOHN ALLAN 1900
36 SMITH JOHN B
37 SMITH JOHN B 1795
38 SMITH JOHN B 1940
Dates are a way of keeping works/items with their authors. The date is
useful for authority work when cataloging an item, but it is also useful
for users when trying to determine which John Smith they want. It is
needed in the record (in some way).
If you're talking about linking the name, that may be a different case.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|