Anthony Finkelstein wrote:
> >1. why is the link to the information resource outside the metadata set?
>
> The consensus response here is that DC.Identifier serves that
> purpose. But surely the identifier IDENTIFIES the resource it does
> not locate (aka link-to) it.
A URL is still an identifier. Admittedly, URLs also need some kind of
time-span associated with them (between these dates, I know I saw this
web page there).
How else are you going to identify a web page?
If there is more than one way, there'll be more than one DC.Identifier field.
> Thus a sound metadata scheme
> distinguishes between the identifier and the locator or perhaps the
> link to the identifier and the link to the service which resolves the
> physical address.
A URL is just as valid as any other identifier, especially considering
the DC.Coverage field is available for coding the dates between which
that URL actually identified a resource. Too bad we can travel back in
time and fetch the resource at the time it was available (thus the
National Library of Australia's project to archive web sites).
> >2. if all elements in the metadata set are optional then is an empty
> >metadata set valid?
>
> The responses were contradictory. Some said yes. Some said no. Quite
> a few said who cares. Well ... I care. Call me a picky programming
> type but I like to get my specifications correct.
All fields are optional. However, having no fields present at all brings
you around to a philosophical question: If you have 15 fields which
you've opted to not put any values in, do you have a null metadata set,
or do you have no metadata?
As a programmer, it's up to you to decide. As a database adminsitrator,
you have to allow for a 0..M:1 relationship. As a metadata author, you
can be satisfied that you've fulfilled your responsibilities by not
doing anything at all. Whether that's the best thing to do in a given
circumstance, is a debate probably best left to each metadata author and
their immediate peers and stakeholders.
> >7. if I make a resource available am I the publisher? ...
>
> ... It seems to me that "making a resource
> available" is not the same thing as publishing ...
> My concern is using DC in an intranet setting where the concept of
> publisher is very difficult to interpret. Any advice?
In a University, you have Faculties. In Faculties, you usually have
smaller subdivisions (Schools?). In Schools you have Professors. So
there's always some level of granularity in that setting that allows you
to specify a personal or corporate publisher.
In a Government you have Departments. In Departments you have smaller
subdivisions such as Sections, Divisions or Branches. So there's always
some level of granularity that allows specification of personal or
corporate publishing.
I would treat the Web master and their equipment as a printer (do they
get mentioned at all in DC metadata?), the signing authority as the
editor/Publisher and the people preparing reports/thesis/proposals as
the Creators. In this instance, the Publisher would be the responsible
entity, while the creators are just the entities who collected and
condensed the information in a resource.
That's just my stab in the dark at a vague and shadowy problem.
Alex
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|