I'd like to ask for futher clarification of why 1:1 "doesn't work"...
In my experience with AMICO data, and (or at least this is what I heard
John Perkins say) in the CIMI Testbed, 1:1 was essential for maintaining
clarity and integrity in metadata records. We've found in assembling the
first AMICO dataset that implied meaning, no matter how clear within an
insitution gets lost as soon as data moves into an inter-institutional
environment. Explicit metadata is the only way to make things unambiguous.
The way I see it, 1:1 is just a case of describing the 'object in hand'.
And since there isn't a way of linking repeating elements in DC, it is also
the only way to ensure that records make logical sense.
There was talk at DC 6 about "embedding" metadata from one record within
another. I'm struggling to understand this, because I can't see how it
differs from 1:1, and would like to speak with an example.
I'm using the Mummy that John borrowed at the DC6 meeting -- that image can
be found at http://www.amico.net/docs/dataspec.final3.shtml I'm running
fast and loose without any qualifiers, and as a result have had to force
the Art Institute of Chicago into being a Publisher. ... "I want my DCQ"
ID: AIC_.1910.238
Creator: Egyptian, Possibly from Thebes
Title: Mummy Case of Paankhenamun
Date: Third Intermediate Period Dynasty 22 (c. 945 - 715 BC)
Type: Physical Object
Type: Sarcophagus
Format: cartonnage mummy case with mummy inside
h. 67 in (170 cm) w. 17 in (43 cm) d (12 1/2 in) (31.7 cm)
Cartonnage (gum, linen and papyrus), gold leaf, pigment
Publisher: The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
[ALTERNATELY Relation: IsOwnedBy]
Relation:
HasFormat AIC_.E22827.TIF
ID: AIC_.E22827.TIF
Creator: The Art Institute of Chicago
Title: front view
Date: 1998
Type: image
Type: reproduction
Format: TIFF
Format: RGB
Format: 331 x 768 pixels
Format: 745 K
Format: uncompressed
Relation: IsFormatOf AIC_.1910.238
Publisher: The Art Museum Image Consortium
Rights: Copyright The Art Institute of Chicago, 1998
I've got two DC records here, each describing a thing {the digital image or
the original sarcophagus). I could (and we have) continued to create other
DC records for other versions of images (thumbnails, partial screen views,
etc.), or other images, like details of the top of the head, or x-rays, or
CAT Scans.
We can reassemble these records in ways that look a lot like MARC records
with "nested" 856 <?> fields (as in the AVIADOR project at Columbia) by
displaying the fields in the DC image record "under" the title of the
original object. But I can't merge the records without losing the logical
distinction about what is the TIF file, and what is the sarcophagus. Right?
Thanks.
jennifer
(if you want to see the full AMICO record for the Sarcophagus, it's at
http://www.amico.net/library/3.shtml)
__________
J. Trant [log in to unmask]
Partner & Principal Consultant phone: +1 412 422 8530
Archives & Museum Informatics fax: +1 412 422 8594
2008 Murray Ave, Suite D http://www.archimuse.com
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
__________
