I don't see Censorship as contributing to any ownership of rights over a document.
I see Censorship as contributing to a new set of metadata, and
interacting with a Censor "engine". For example, PICS is a different set
of metadata aimed at allowing a viewer's browser to filter (based on
data about) content at the time it's delivered. PICS can also be used to
filter (based on data about) content at the time a search is performed.
In this case, you add a PICS set and an Admin Core set of metadata.
Alternately, if you are cataloging a resource that has already been
censored (eg: a newspaper with bits cut out or blacked-out text, a Word
document with portions struck out), then the Censor has directly
contributed to the content of the document.
Thus I'd see Censorship as a valid "role" for a Contributor.
Censorship is something we should consider, since it applies not only to
material that you, I or someone else has labelled as "dubious moral
value", but also to materials released by Government departments which
are subject to privacy laws, Defence (or Defense) Department documents
in which field agent names or codes have been struck out, times of
satellite photos are removed, e-mail addresses for Point of Contact have
been added, etc.
A "Censor" from the DoD would be the person who's reviewed the document
and applied a security rating to it. As oppposed to the technical editor
who's the person who reviewed the document and accepted it as
technically correct or feasible.
We need to accept that documents are going to be censored in some way,
shape or form. Movies have ratings applied to them, to indicate what the
officers of the Office of Film and Literature Classification feel is a
suitable audience for the film.
Politicians are always going to want censorship in their own way - thus
we have embargoed press releases, which let newspapers prepare a "late
breaking story" without ruining the political aspirations of a
particular Party.
Is it the role of DC metadata to carry OFLC classification, or is that
for another set of metadata?
Is it the role of DC metadata to carry embargo dates, or is that for
another set of metadata?
Note that PICS is entirely different to the OFLC classification series.
Under PICS, you can choose to look at material that contains explicit
violence (eg: footage of an Ethiopian woman being decapitated by an
angry militia, covering the social issues of the various problems in
that region) or blood and gore (eg: footage of a heart transplant).
Under the OFLC scheme, you can't choose to watch stuff that you're not
allowed to - if you're a 14yo child, you're simply not allowed to see an
R rated film.
I'll leave it there, since my train of thought has been derailed by my
real job :)
Regards
Alex
James Weinheimer wrote:
>
> The direction of this discussion has changed from the idea of "authority for
> incorrect/inaccurate information" vs. "authority for illegal information". The
> two ideas are different, although both functions could certainly be included in
> the same entity.
> One possibility for encoding the first type of authority would be "DC.Publisher"
> and I raised the possibility for the second type of authority in "DC.Rights".
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|