Hi, Peter --
The argument (not advanced by me, but I take the point) has been that
a person's name is no more "the person" than his e-mail address is -- it's
just a label for the person. Of course, people change e-mail addresses
more often than they change names, but the principle still applies. If you
accept that premise, than e-mail address does not violate the semantics
of the creator element (Canberra Qualifiers), nor does it violate 1:1.
However,something like mailing address (22 Cross Street, Northville, NY)
can in no way serve a comparable purpose, and therefore does violate, to
my mind, the Canberra Qualifiers rule, and in your argument, 1:1.
Im happy to propose that we are both right.
--Robin
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Robin -
>
> I've never seen a succinct definition of the 1:1 rule. Those of us who
> came in after the original discussions have had to piece it together from
> context ... (_please_ someone whose got a better understanding jump in at
> any time) ... but ...
>
> As I understand it, the 1:1 rule deals with only including metadata that
> applies to the instantiation of the resource "in hand". It is usually
> thought of in terms of related resources. Hence, if a resource has a
> relationship with a second resource. it may reference the second resource,
> but it should not include metadata from that resource (unless that metadata
> is also directly applicable). If people (or applications/search engines)
> want more information (metadata) about the related resource, they must
> follow the link to that resource.
>
> For example, suppose we have a resource called "Article A" by Suzy Smith
> and a second resource called "Article B" by John Doe. If Article B is
> based on Article A, as I understand it, the 1:1 rule tells us that we
> should indicate the relationship in Article B's metadata:
>
> DC.Title = "Article B"
> DC.Relation.IsBasedOn = "Article A"
>
> but that we should stop short of including any other Article A metadata.
> For example, if you want the author of Article A, you would have to go to
> Article A's metadata to get it. You would _NOT_ add an Article B metadata
> field like DC.Relation.IsBasedOn.Creator = "Suzy Smith". Simply put, even
> though there is a relationship between the resources, Article A's author
> does not belong in, nor should it be repeated in Article B's metadata.
>
> So what's the parallel to, for example Creator.EmailAddress?
>
> >From a conceptual perspective, the agent qualifiers can be thought of as
> special cases of the Relation qualifier in so far as they name a related
> resource where the relationship is that the named resource created,
> published or contributed to the current resource. For example, the DC 1.0
> notion of Creator could conceptually be expressed as Relation.WasCreatedBy,
> (if there were such a subelement). Hence
>
> DC.Title = "Article B"
> DC.Creator = "John Doe"
>
> could be represented as
>
> DC.Title = "Article B"
> DC.Relation.WasCreatedBy = "John Doe"
>
> Hence, adding DC.Creator.EmailAddress would be tantamount to adding
> DC.Relation.WasCreatedBy.EmailAddress (like DC.Relation.IsBasedOn.Creator).
>
> John Doe's e-mail address is part of the metadata that describes the second
> resource Johh Doe, not part of the metadata that describes Article B.
> John's e-mail address has no more business in Article B's metadata than the
> Article A's author does. (IMHO)
>
>
>
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|