[log in to unmask] wrote:
> I agree with Stu that "perfect " and " less perfect " worlds can coexist.
> I am concerned however, that by just listing qualifiers like e-mail, we're
> tacitly encouraging people to take the "less perfect" road.
>
> I move that we put very clear disclaimers and explanations both in the
> qualifier listings and in the best practice document that Diane is working
> on to indicate that the preferred implementation approach is to
> "rationalize" metadata, time and funding permitted.
My concerns are that the quick and dirty road will lead to something which we
already silently dropped: the spooky ghost of "SIMPLE DC". PJ Browning posted
in a mail (I do not know if it reached the community), that there is a need
for quick and dirty. As an example he said, that cataloging falling apart
paperbacks in the public library was done quick and dirty, because after
three months they were thrown away anyway.
Personally I do not mind, doing something quick and dirty when I do it in my
room and on my own. But DC as a standard should not only provide means to
describe resources, but also to exchange the information. How, if not by
being able to access fairly standardized data, will e.g. search machines be
able to make use of DC data. (PJ Browning obviously never intended to share
his q&d data).
I simply would like to see DC in a role where it encourages people to do some
"proper" resource description. This can be done by a couple of rules of
thumb: use names in a standard form (eg. lastname, firstname - no one will
have to read the whole section of the AACR in order to do that), use dates as
ISO8601 etc. etc.
Quick and dirty means "standalone", "insular": we should not encourage it.
Markus
--
Homepage: http://wotan.econ.surrey.ac.uk/~markus
http://wotan.econ.surrey.ac.uk/test/gemini.cgi?show=RePEc:per:1972-06-06:MARKUS_KLINK
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|