 |
 |
I have had no problem with the following: For example, I have manuals for which I have the following: VRS Employer Manual Has Part Chapter 1, VRS Employer Manual VRS Employer Manual HasPart Chapter 2, VRS Employer Manual etc. and then Chapter 1, VRS Employer Manual IsPartOf VRS Employer Manual Chapter 2, VRS Employer Manual IsPartOf VRS Employer Manual It gets fuzzy though, when I have a resource that is not an actual part of the parent resource. So, I am understanding you to be saying that even if the attached item is not an excerpt of something else (IsPartOf another resource) or an actual portion of the parent resource, it can still be HasPart. Is this correct? I had not even thought of including both References and HasPart. Unfortunately, some of these items are not in the public domain. I hope to eventually gain enough trust from the Director and some of the other executives that I can obtain the originals that are included in these items. Thanks for your reply. Kelly Ann Green KMS Content Analyst Virginia Retirement System -----Original Message----- From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of G. Milde Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:02 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Qualified DC metadata HasPart and References question On 20.07.04, Paul Stainthorp wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out how to identify a relation wherein a > > document contains another document (as an attachment) in its > > entirety. HasPart does not seem to really fit, as it indicates an > > excerpt. > > > > In addition, I rarely have the attachment as a document in its own > > right. It is often an item issued by another organization. However, > > References does not truly apply either. > (1) Requires "The described resource requires the referenced resource > to support its function, delivery, or coherence of content". I would think of this as a needed external source -- if it is included, the referenced (original) document will no longer be necessary for functionality, delivery, ... > (2) hasPart "The described resource includes the referenced resource > either physically or logically". This seems to be the case for the above case. My basic example for hasPart would be chapters of a book or papers in a collection a conference proceedings volume. As an appendix can be thought of as a special chapter, hasPart seems to be a good choice. > (3) References "The described resource references, cites, or otherwise > points to the referenced resource". This could overlap with the "logical inclusion" in hasPart, so a link in a webpage could be both. If the attached document is also published/available separately, it could be given in both hasPart and References (e.g. with just the name in hasPart and a fully qualified citation in References) > I'd be very interested in finding out how other people have coped with > describing more "fuzzy" relationships. I use DC qualifiers for a software library and there are some problems with "fuzziness", as the terms are made with mainly text (in a natural language) in mind. The problem is solved by establishing some conventions for the use of the DC terms in the meta-meta documentation. Günter Milde -- G.Milde at web.de