All,
At the risk of spamming(!), I will keep my remarks brief.
After a long discussion with one fellow on the list, I finally realized that
the purpose of his version of role (forgive the syntax: e.g.
DC.Agent.Illustrator) vs. the version I prefer (DC.Agent.Role
Value="Illustrator") was based on his desire to make the roles interoperable
(in library terminology: consistent). Apparently, it is not possible to make
roles "interoperable" with the second version.
I feel that consistency/interoperability in assigning roles is far too
difficult to achieve in reality, based on the experience of catalogers. He
feels it can be done. My example of a person with a role of "Electronic
Resources and Multi-Media Specialist" would be handled by this fellow in the
following way:
The metadata creator would give something similar to:
"DC.Agent.ElectronicResourcesandMulti-MediaSpecialist" add it to a registry
and hope that DCMI would accept it at some future date. How this would work
in practical terms is very unclear, and what would happen to the roles that
are not accepted is also unclear.
My feeling is that this approach would in effect be telling people to create
invalid DC--although a few roles may be ruled valid, the majority would be
ruled invalid (or at least I hope so!).
Also, if we officially suggest that people should create invalid DC in the
hopes that it will be accepted later, why wouldn't people do the same with
title, format, relation, etc. in the "hopes that it will be accepted later"?
The entire DC project could fall apart. That's why I've argued so strenuously
against it.
All in all, a lot of work that--experience has shown--cannot be achieved even
by highly trained people.
James Weinheimer
Princeton University
[log in to unmask]
"Rebecca S. Guenther" wrote:
> Could we consider the issues surrounding the current vote being taken in
> the DC-Agents WG on role? Much discussion has occurred about whether Role
> should be a qualifier with a value specifying the role versus whether the
> roles themselves should be the qualifiers (perhaps from a controlled list
> but not limited to this).
>
> Below is the vote form.
>
> Any opinions? Can we come to any consensus on this list? Please include
> reasons. (of course we can all go read the archives from the agents list;
> so please keep your messages concise and point to any already existing
> messages from that list if necessary).
>
> Rebecca
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 04:48:28 GMT
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Digest of dc-agents - volume 1 #97
>
> Subjects of messages in this digest:
>
> Role Pre-Vote
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 23:31:38 +1000 (EST)
> From: Renato Iannella <[log in to unmask]>
> To: DC Agents WG <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Role Pre-Vote
> Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I would like to propose that we now vote on the Role
> qualifier. The proposed wording is below. Please note
> that the examples look the same but the difference is in
> the definition of the Option.
>
> Is this OK? If not, please propose new wording.
>
> (Please note - this is NOT a vote yet)
>
> Cheers... Renato
>
> ----START-VOTE
>
> Option A
> --------
>
> A Role qualifier that is based on values selected from
> an identified exisiting controlled vocabulary, including
> the ability to have uncontrolled values.
>
> For example: Role = "Actor"
> Vocab = "MARC-Relator"
>
> Role = "Dishwasher"
> Vocab = ""
>
> Option B
> --------
>
> A Role qualifier that is based on a set of values defined
> by and maintained by DCMI, including the ability to have
> uncontrolled values.
>
> For example: Role = "Actor"
> Vocab = "DCMI-ROLE1"
>
> Role = "Dishwasher"
> Vocab = ""
>
> Option C - There should not be a Role Qualifier
> --------
>
> Option D - Abstain
> --------
>
> ---END VOTE
>
> ------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
