We had a long discussion of the 1:1 rule. [See:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-one2one/archive.html]
On the list "dcone2one", David Bearman explained 1:1. He emphasized:
"1 = resource
1 = metadata set
1 resource: 1 metadata set
NOT 1 resource:1 physical record"
To more accurately understand this, I made the following example which David
endorsed. [I made up the <set> tag below, but I believe its purpose is
understandable].
> 1) David's idea, illustrated by embedded metadata, e.g.:
> A jpeg, scanned by Joe from a photo by Stan of the Mona Lisa by
> Leonardo.
> <set 1><Title=Mona Lisa>
> <Format=oil painting>
> <Creator=Leonardo, da Vinci>
> </set 1>
> <set 2><Title=Photo of Mona Lisa>
> <Format=35 mm>
> <Creator=Stan>
> </set 2>
> <set 3><Title=Digitized image of Mona Lisa>
> <Format=jpeg>
> <Creator=Joe>
> </set 3>
> These sets can be manually input, or be included through linked
> information (if I understand Sigfrid correctly. (Thanks--I'm still
> considering your comments)
This shows that there can be varying metadata sets within one metadata record,
and also explains the problems I had concerning Joe being the "creator" of the
Mona Lisa.
[I was personally against this version of 1:1].
There was another idea of 1:1 which I raised, which is more of a cataloging
idea.
> Do multiple formats of
> a single manifestation get separate records, or can they be represented
> in a single record (in cataloger-speak: copy vs. new edition).
My example was a page of Thomas a Kempis' "The Imitation of Christ" found at:
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/kempis/imitation/imitation.html
On this page, you will find 8 formats for the same intellectual content. Do I
make 8 records, or can I fold them all into a single record?
I don't believe we reached anything resembling consensus.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
[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)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|