 |
 |
Well, my inability to resist drawing the parallel between your earlier suggestion and the Agent proposal has diverted atention from the main issue, for which I apologize. Let's leave that discussion for another list/time, and return to the main issue here. Stu, who is still offering a t-shirt (never worn, no rust) for a strawman summary of a kinder, gentler 1:1 principle, 1000 characters or less, that will attract consensus here. > -----Original Message----- > From: James Weinheimer [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 8:57 AM > To: Weibel,Stu > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: 1:1 and the Agent Proposal > > Stu, > > I have followed the agents proposal from the beginning. My concern with > it is that it merges Publisher (the *creator* of the physical > manifestation, be it print, video, digital, etc.) with the Author(s) > (the *creators* of the intellectual aspects of the work). > I realize that there is a problem with a "Web publisher": what does it > mean? What do they do? On the other hand, my experience as a > professional cataloger with a certain amount of experience dealing with > internet resources and other materials leads me to believe that this > confusing situation will probably *not* remain this way. Elsevier, > Random, RCA, etc. will continue to exist, and will remain major powers, > both in print and on the web. > I want to keep the possibility of "Publisher" in Dublin Core, even > though it may not be completely clear how we might use it at the moment. > We should leave open the option of being able to find items authored by > "Random House" as opposed to items only published by "Random House." We > do this now in our catalogs. > > There will definitely be "web publishers" in the future (as there are > now). If we don't allow for these future developments, I believe we will > regret it later. > > Could we agree to this? > Creator-Contributor: > Assignment of Creator and Contributor are based on feelings(!) (or we > could dump Creator altogether as an outmoded concept) > > Publisher: > Retain as it is now, except make clear that it is the entity responsible > for the current manifestation of the work represented in the catalog > record. > It should also be searched separately from Creator-Contributor, since it > represents something different from intellectual access. > Jim Weinheimer > Princeton University > [log in to unmask] > > "Weibel,Stu" wrote: > > > > Jim Weinheimer proposes: > > > > "If you wish to give one person or corporate body primary status in your > > metadata record, place it in the CREATOR field. Otherwise, put all > > corporate bodies and persons in the CONTRIBUTOR field. Primary > > importance should be placed on adding enough people and corporate bodies > > to be of use to the searcher." > > > > stu, wondering if Jim peeked at the Agent Proposal from DC-6, thinks > this is > > a peachy solution. > > > > For those who have not so peeked, The Agent proposal suggests that, for > a > > variety of reasons, we might be better off conflating Creator, > Contributor, > > and Publisher into a single element (Contributor would be my choice for > a > > name). Further distinctions could be made using an enumerated list of > agent > > roles. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%