James, I was happy with all the element qualifiers suggested for creator
until this discussion. I viewed "role" as similar to other identifying
information that people have suggested: phone number, email address,
affiliation. However, may be all that information should reside in an
authority record to which the value qualifier points. This was suggested
at the Authorities section meeting at DC7. However, would this hamper
site indexing? For some projects it may be an important to search by
role. Having role as a separate non-dc element may not be satisfactory
when multiple agents are present.
Mary Woodley
Social Sciences Librarian
California State University, Northridge
James Weinheimer wrote:
>
> Thanks for the message--I think it cleared up several problems for me.
>
> Actually, if your examples are correct, I may have to conclude that I am against
> the idea of role in DC altogether. And my re-reading of:
>
> "Element Qualifiers must refine the semantics of the element (that is, narrow
> the definition of the element). For example, an illustrator (narrower) is a type
> of Creator (broader)."
>
> does--indeed--seem to disallow even the possibility of adding dates. I do not
> see how the example:
> DC.Creator=Shakespeare, William
> DC.Creator.DateRange=1564-1616
> can possibly follow this rule. The date *cannot* narrow the meaning of the
> creator. (Or can it?!)
>
> If our only choices are qualifiers such as:
> "DC.Creator.Sculptor18thCenturyGerman" the number of roles would multiply
> exponentially even beyond what I had considered earlier. If this is the result,
> I really believe we should drop the entire idea.
>
> But let me take the other side. How does Agent.Link/Identifier fit into this?
> DC.Creator=Shakespeare, William
> DC.Creator.Link=http://---
> or Agent.Affiliation
> DC.Creator=Weinheimer, James
> DC.Creator.Affiliation=Princeton University
>
> Do any of these "refine the semantics of the element"?
>
> James Weinheimer
> Princeton University
> [log in to unmask]
>
> > Message from Stephen Hearn,
>
> > 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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|