As instigator and reporter of that breakout group in Washington, allow
me to clarify. A significant portion of the community has felt that 1:1
was declared to be consensus after Helsinki and that differing opinions
expressed at Helsinki were... well, let's say they got lost in the
shuffle.
Many implementers (every one I know of) have found it operationally
necessary to create descriptions which may violate 1:1 to the extent
that any of us actually understand it. There is widespread concern that
the slogan of 1:1 not constrain implementers from fulfilling real needs.
>From our reading of the RDF spec, it appears that RDF is completely
capable of supporting the models that implementers require. Our
conclusions were
-- If 1:1 (as we understand it) does *not* enable implementers to
accomplish the requirements expressed, specific expressed user needs
are not addressed and a supplementary technique must be supported to
address those needs.
If 1:1 *does* enable implementers to accomplish the requirements
expressed, then the concept appears to accommodate user needs.
In *either* case
-- 1:1 must be revisted to determine its usefulness as a DC precept
-- User needs must be determined and addressed
-- 1:1 should be formally adopted, allowed, or rejected as a coding
technique
-- If adopted or allowed, it must be codified in DC standards,
and guidelines should be developed for its application.
--Robin
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, David Bearman wrote:
> Prior to DC6 the DC Policy ASdvisory Committee we struck a Process
> sub-committee which will report out a formal pocess for moving all
> proposals from working group through sanctioned practice. We expect to
> hasve such processes adopted by the end of 1998 and will be implementing
> them for working group proposals from previous meetings and for the future.
> At present no DC document except the rfc has that status.
> However, that does not change the fact that 1:1 was agreed at Helsinki in
> the plenary. That decision has not in any way been reversed by DC6. The
> break-out whioch discussed 1:1 proposed clarifying its application.
>
> David
>
> At 01:50 PM 11/5/98 +1000, Renato Iannella wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Alex Satrapa wrote:
> >
> >> THE 1:1 ISSUE
> >>
> >> There's an argument that goes way back (DC-5[1], I believe settled it)
> about
> >> what actually gets allocated metadata. The term used to describe the
> current
> >
> >The 1:1 issue was raised and discussed at DC5, but never sanctioned
> >by the DC community as *the* only way to deploy metadata.
> >The issue was again raised at DC6 with similar outcome.
> >
> >Cheers.... Renato
> >
> >------------------
> >Dr Renato Iannella http://www.dstc.edu.au/renato/
> >DSTC Pty Ltd phone://61.7/3365.4310
> >Uni Qld, 4072, AUSTRALIA fax://61.7/3365.4311
> >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >
> >
> >
> David Bearman
> President
> Archives & Museum Informatics
> 2008 Murray Ave, Suite D
> Pittsburgh, PA 15217 USA
> Phone: +1 412 422 8530
> Fax: +1 412 422 8594
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.archimuse.com
>
>
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
