Message from Stephen Hearn, which apparently was rejected from the list. I
am forwarding it (and hope to solve whatever problem rejected it.)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:46:20 -0600
From: Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
*******************************************
Since there are a number of us new to this list, maybe some review of the
definitions of DC qualifiers would be useful. I get a sense from some of
the recent comments that some people are thinking of DC qualifiers as
comparable to MARC subfields-e.g., the $d date subfield in a personal name
heading, or the $e relater subfield. I think this is problematic.
The definition of DC qualifiers I'm working from is at:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/dc-general/1999-11/0029.html
It indicates that qualifiers always apply to the element as a whole.
"Element" qualifiers narrow the definition of an element (e.g., creating a
qualified element name for "illustrators"). "Value" qualifiers apply to the
content of an element by specifying an encoding scheme (e.g. an ISO date
format scheme) or a controlled vocabulary (e.g., LCSH, AAT, NAF) which
interprets, controls, or offers context for the value (i.e., the data) in
the element.
The proposals for Agent qualifiers are presented as "value" qualifiers, but
the controlled lists of values referred to do not correspond to the data
that would be present in the DC element. The name in a DC agent field
won't be found in the MARC relator term list, for example, so I don't see
how that list could be a value qualifier for the DC agent fields. If the
agent element is multiplied with qualifiers to be come a set of related
elements each describing an aspect of the agent, then there needs to be
coding or syntax to specify which qualified element (e.g., specifying a
"role") goes with which named agent.
The proposals make more sense as element qualifiers. This means that a date
range element qualifier would narrow the meaning of the agent element
chronologically, e.g., "Creator.19thCentury". It would not be capable of
specifying the dates of individuals, as the MARC X00 $d does. A role
element qualifier would define a role-based class of agents, e.g.,
"Creator.Painter." The list of MARC relator terms might be a source for
these classes, but the terms themselves would probably be incorporated into
the qualified element. They would likely not be qualifying terms added to
individual names, like the MARC X00 $e.
I find nothing to indicate that DC elements can have multiple qualifiers.
I suppose this means that attempting to define role on two or more
dimensions could result in a very long and complex list of qualified
element names, e.g., "Creator.Painter19thCentury,"
"Creator.Sculptor18thCenturyGerman," etc., which is still working with
fairly broad categories.
I'd be more interested in seeing how value qualifiers could be used to
control and better articulate the data in DC elements. If the USMARC
national authority file (or some derivitive of it) could be specified with
a value qualifier as controlling the content of an element , e.g.,
"Creator.NAF", then all the data necessary should theoretically be present
to access the authority record, with its specification of dates and other
individuating data for names, and the other kinds of information
authorities can carry. The same case could be made for any number of
available online directories and indexes of names. If the DC record
creator is authorized to create records in the specified controlled
vocabulary, or in a local controlled vocabulary also specifiable either as
a stand-alone vocabulary or as a supplement to the larger vocabulary, then
the record creator's ability to articulate aspects of named entities will
be significantly extended. Lastly, the controlled vocabulary records could
be defined to permit searching of individual entities based on the various
classes (chronological, national, ethnic, professional, etc.) to which they
belong. The possibilities for using such linked files to enable greater
definition and refinement of both data and searches are many. This is what
I understand to be the promise of the resource description framework (RDF).
Many of the qualifiers proposed for agents seem to me to belong in a
different element set. The DC element set is intended for describing
network-accessible materials. The data being articulated in most of the
proposals is more about the agents themselves. Shouldn't we be looking to
design a generalized element set for records describing agents, rather than
trying to articulate all the data about agents within DC? In that context,
the proposals for value qualifiers for Agents would make a lot of
sense-e.g., the Agents element set would include a Role element, for which
the MARC relator term list could be the value qualifier. But as they
currently stand, I find the proposals for agent qualifiers very problematic.
If I am wrong on this, please tell me so on the list, so that any one who
shares my confusion can get the benefit of your answer.
Stephen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|