 |
 |
There is also the attached document, which was drafted for the DC Workshop in Ottawa (October 2000) but went nowhere ... Warwick Cathro Assistant Director-General, Innovation National Library of Australia Ph: 02 6262 1403 Fax: 02 6273 1133 Mob: 0411 868 411 -----Original Message----- From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bigwood, David Sent: Tuesday, 12 December 2006 8:27 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: people metadata Liddy, Here are some resources that may be useful. Functional Requirements for Authority Records: A Conceptual Model http://www.ifla.org/VII/d4/FRANAR-Conceptual-M-Draft-e.pdf MARC Code List: PART I: RELATOR CODES http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relators.html Both LCSN and aat contain records for people. http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATHierarchy?find=painter&logic=AND¬e=&page= 1&subjectid=300024979 Sincerely, David Bigwood [log in to unmask] Lunar and Planetary Institute http://www.lpi.usra.edu/library/whats_new.shtml -----Original Message----- From: General DCMI discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 2:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: people metadata ah-ha! so slowly 'I' am getting to understand better and wonder if there are others like me who might find it useful to think about this issue? I have battled with the descriptions of people, not just because there are zillions of things that one might want to say about people and, of course, they would be in application profiles, but because I have had trouble understanding all the terms that were chosen way back in theoretical ways. The abstract model (DCAM) helps a lot but it is very difficult in retrospect to create a model when some of the terms were just 'chosen'. (I have re-read some of the early docs and know that at times it was almost exhaustion with the problems that led to the choices that were necessary to satisfy the very wide range of domains in which people wanted DC terms to be able to function.) BUT if I think of people as being related to the resource, and specifically the creator, contributor, publisher terms as important qualifications of the 'relation' term, I am much more comfortable with those terms. So now I can think about what I might want to say about 'people'. First, I extend 'people' to 'agents' because it might not be a person who creates, contributes, etc... Then I can start to think about how people might be described. If there are terms that I like in other metadata sets, I need to find ways of expressing the same info in a way that conforms to the DCAM if those terms do not already conform. And when I do that, I can use the DCAM to think about how I make descriptions of the people (agents) I am interested in. Once I have my terms for expressing my descriptions, I can use them in a range of ways. This is possible because within RDF there are good ways of making and linking statements. * I can use DC conformant terms to describe the relations the resource has with an agent - illustrator, photographer, needle- pointer, ... * I can use DC conformant terms to describe a person when there is no particular resource in my mind * I can use DC conformant terms to relate resources to the person..... Maybe a lot of us can agree about some sets of terms and we can develop application profiles for specific communities.. So that is how I now understand the situation, and my encyclopaedia and dictionaries of biographies colleagues might want to contribute to the list of reqs for agents, alongside others who work in government, education, health, sport, ..... (please contact the Agents Community leaders) Correct???? Please feel free to correct my story ..... Liddy