Hi,
A while back in some Relations working group discussions, I enquired
how DC could handle *interpretive* relationships of the sort that
scholars make between documents. In a recent paper we wrote (I hope
you'll agree this is fair):
"Current metadata initiatives are focused on the encoding of primary
content attributes to improve retrieval and interoperability.
Inconsistencies and interpretations in encoding at this level are
considered undesirable in order to assist machine processing. In
contrast, these are precisely the features that a system needs to
support the interpreted, knowledge level, as researchers contest the
significance of data, and the concepts which it underpins."
If you're interested in a digital library system that might be
thought of as based on 'interpretive relational metadata'
(underpinned by a knowledge base), then you can find details at:
Scholarly Ontologies Project: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/scholonto
Regards,
Simon
--
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Dr Simon Buckingham Shum Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
Mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs/ Tel: +44 (0)1908-655723
eFax: +44 (0)870-122-8765 (personal) +44 (0)1908-653169 (office)
Jnl. Interactive Media in Education: http://www-jime.open.ac.uk
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
"What gets measured is not always important,
and what is important cannot always be measured" Einstein
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|