Anthony Finkelstein wrote:
> 1. why is the link to the information resource outside the metadata set?
You have DC.Identifier, which is a link to a resource in some form or
another (eg: URL, ISBN). The metadata set cannot always be part of the
information resource. In fact, the metadata will usually not be part of
the resource.
Metadata will usually be part of a database, while resources will be
part of some collection (eg: books in a library, with metadata in the catalogue)
> 2. if all elements in the metadata set are optional then is an empty
> metadata set valid?
Yes.
> 3. if format is defined by MIME Media Types then why do the list of
> DC Resource Types substantially overlap with it?
Format is not defined by MIME Media Types. You can use MIME to describe
electronic resources, or the A&AT to describe art works.
Consider DC.Type = text and DC.Format = image/tiff.
What could that possibly indicate? A fax, which IIRC is a TIFF format
image, representing some text on a piece of paper.
> 4. how does the format relation type (isFormatOf and HasFormat)
> relate to the DC element source (the definitions appear identical)?
For fear of raising the spectre of the Ansel Adams landscape debate
again, DC.Source would indicate the original source of the intellectual
property. DC.Relation would indicate the work that this one was derived from.
Consider the photographer Ansel Adams. He takes a photo of a landscape.
Then someone scans that photo into an art database as a JPEG, and
someone else publishes that JPEG on their web site as a GIF.
DC.Source of the GIF would be the original photo, while DC.Relation
isFormatOf would point to both the JPEG and the photo. At least, that's
*my* interpretation.
DC.Creator and DC.Contributor are not clear in my mind, though I think
the outcome of the debate is that a person converting a photo to an
electronic image had no contribution to the intellectual content, so
therefore don't get mentioned as creator or contributor.
> 5. if elements can occur any number of times why do none of the
> examples in the Guidance on Expressing DC in RDF show this happening?
So change one of the examples. I think the people writing the document
had taken repeating fields as a given, and were worried more about
representation of particular concepts in their DC and RDF versions.
> 6. the OMG have developed the UML (& XMI) which supports the
> definition of relationships between objects, how do DC relations fit
> into that picture?
I don't have any opinion to contribute to this one. Actually, I do -
aren't OMG the one's developing the language-independent CORBA which
assumes that you're only using Java?
> 7. if I make a resource available am I the publisher? Thus if I place
> a resource on the UCL web site it gains its authority from the fact
> that it is located at that domain and hence UCL is the publisher
> lending its imprimatur to my work, even though I made it available,
> or have I misunderstood?
<troll>
That was my impression a long time ago, but then the Librarians got me...
Apparently because publishing a work on a Web site costs nothing
(besides your effort, hard drive space and your internet connection),
you're not really publishing that work.
However, if you were to photocopy that work a hundred times and stick it
up on billboards and slide it under people's windscreen wipers, you're a
publisher because paper is tangible and people can understand it.
</troll>
But seriously, I'd consider that listing someone as a publisher only
means that that person has given some authority to that work by
presenting it to the public for consumption. Some people do have
difficulty accepting publishing on the Internet as "real" publishing
because there is no editorial or peer review, as there would be for a
document in a scientific journal or newspaper - regardless of your
status in presenting the work (eg: what's the difference between UCL
presenting a work on their web site, and Jo Schmoe presenting a work on
his web site?)
Alex Satrapa
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|