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".
BTW, in MARC format, there is the obsolete 527 field, which was the old
"Censorship note".
If something has been censored, shouldn't we rather include that information in
the record, and who the censor was? In the last century, the authors and
printers frequently did it.
I remember a case in Pushkin's epic poem "Evgenii Onegin" where Pushkin
addressed the censor and asked him to be kind to his work. In old Russian books,
the date of censorship was always available. (It's too bad we may be sinking to
this point!).
Also, if people do not want to have their pages indexed in a web server, they
should be encouraged to add the robots exclusion file to their site.
(http://www.archive.org/robotexclusion.html)
In any case, this sort of information should go into a style manual for website
creators, but I believe there should be nothing in the metadata record which
would deny access. That should not be our job.
And for "inappropriate" material, there is PICS which can easily be incorporated
into any site.
I just feel that these sorts of issues should be dealt with by the website
creator and not by the indexer/librarian/metadata creator.
Jim Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|