 |
 |
Hi, Peter -- The argument (not advanced by me, but I take the point) has been that a person's name is no more "the person" than his e-mail address is -- it's just a label for the person. Of course, people change e-mail addresses more often than they change names, but the principle still applies. If you accept that premise, than e-mail address does not violate the semantics of the creator element (Canberra Qualifiers), nor does it violate 1:1. However,something like mailing address (22 Cross Street, Northville, NY) can in no way serve a comparable purpose, and therefore does violate, to my mind, the Canberra Qualifiers rule, and in your argument, 1:1. Im happy to propose that we are both right. --Robin On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Robin - > > I've never seen a succinct definition of the 1:1 rule. Those of us who > came in after the original discussions have had to piece it together from > context ... (_please_ someone whose got a better understanding jump in at > any time) ... but ... > > As I understand it, the 1:1 rule deals with only including metadata that > applies to the instantiation of the resource "in hand". It is usually > thought of in terms of related resources. Hence, if a resource has a > relationship with a second resource. it may reference the second resource, > but it should not include metadata from that resource (unless that metadata > is also directly applicable). If people (or applications/search engines) > want more information (metadata) about the related resource, they must > follow the link to that resource. > > For example, suppose we have a resource called "Article A" by Suzy Smith > and a second resource called "Article B" by John Doe. If Article B is > based on Article A, as I understand it, the 1:1 rule tells us that we > should indicate the relationship in Article B's metadata: > > DC.Title = "Article B" > DC.Relation.IsBasedOn = "Article A" > > but that we should stop short of including any other Article A metadata. > For example, if you want the author of Article A, you would have to go to > Article A's metadata to get it. You would _NOT_ add an Article B metadata > field like DC.Relation.IsBasedOn.Creator = "Suzy Smith". Simply put, even > though there is a relationship between the resources, Article A's author > does not belong in, nor should it be repeated in Article B's metadata. > > So what's the parallel to, for example Creator.EmailAddress? > > >From a conceptual perspective, the agent qualifiers can be thought of as > special cases of the Relation qualifier in so far as they name a related > resource where the relationship is that the named resource created, > published or contributed to the current resource. For example, the DC 1.0 > notion of Creator could conceptually be expressed as Relation.WasCreatedBy, > (if there were such a subelement). Hence > > DC.Title = "Article B" > DC.Creator = "John Doe" > > could be represented as > > DC.Title = "Article B" > DC.Relation.WasCreatedBy = "John Doe" > > Hence, adding DC.Creator.EmailAddress would be tantamount to adding > DC.Relation.WasCreatedBy.EmailAddress (like DC.Relation.IsBasedOn.Creator). > > John Doe's e-mail address is part of the metadata that describes the second > resource Johh Doe, not part of the metadata that describes Article B. > John's e-mail address has no more business in Article B's metadata than the > Article A's author does. (IMHO) > > > 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 ............. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%