There have been discussions whether the description of "Agents" (i.e.
humans) is in scope for DCMES. Generally it is felt that DCMES does not
describe agents and that further work is needed; that is being done in the
DC-Agents Working Group. This is why no terms for agents were included in
DCMI Type vocabulary. Both "person" and "organization" were proposed and
rejected because it had not been decided at that time how to describe
these. I don't know that this is anywhere in writing, but will suggest to
DC-Usage Board that it be provided.
So, in answer to your question, "physical object" is not intended to
include humans. Information on size, duration, medium would be included in
Format. There is a need for "physical object" to include resources that do
not fit into the other categories. Many projects request that a
high-level Type be included and for something non-electronic that is
3-dimensional (e.g. a sculpture) there needs to be a general term.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^ Rebecca S. Guenther ^^
^^ Senior Networking and Standards Specialist ^^
^^ Network Development and MARC Standards Office ^^
^^ 1st and Independence Ave. SE ^^
^^ Library of Congress ^^
^^ Washington, DC 20540-4402 ^^
^^ (202) 707-5092 (voice) (202) 707-0115 (FAX) ^^
^^ [log in to unmask] ^^
^^ ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:09:50 +0200
> From: Heike Neuroth <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Usage Board agenda, 12-13 May 2002
>
> Dear all,
>
> We generally agree that the document type called =84Physical Object=93 is a=
> =20
> useful addition.
> But we would like to send some comments, thoughts, questions:
>
> Is there a particular reason to exclude human beings? What exactly is the=20
> meaning of non-human? Is it possible to describe e.g. also mummies? Do we=20
> need to differentiate between human and non-human or between human and=20
> animal (alive or dead as well)?
>
> To describe a physical books in a library we need to catalogue them at=20
> least with two document types (=93physical object=94 and =93text=94)? If we=
> also=20
> have (important) illustrations, images in the book do we add the document=20
> type =93image?
>
> Do we really need to include substance? Is it not more useful to have two=20
> new document types: one =93physical object=94 including also humans and one=
> =20
> more abstract type to decribe e.g. also chemical elements (or philosophical=
> =20
> ideas, etc.)
> Is the term =93substance=94 not a little bit fuzzy on the one hand and too=
> =20
> narrow on the other hand? Besides wheat there are a lot of other substances=
> =20
> imaginable, e.g. harmful substances, water (also in ice, gas aggregates=20
> etc.). If we do not describe a single grain of wheat we could have a=20
> certain amount of wheat packed in something (e.g. in a sack), which is in=20
> general the physical object.
>
> We have some problems to relate document type to format. If we describe=20
> e.g. a sculpture what is the format of it? Do we need beside size or=20
> duration also weight or something else? How can we describe the =93physical=
> =20
> manifestation=94 (definition format) of e.g. a book, sculpture, mummy?=20
> Especially a physical object should be described regarding the =93dimension=
> =20
> of the resource=94 (definition of format). What is the =93physical carrier=
> =94=20
> (definition format.medium) for a vase, sculpture, mummy etc.
>
>
> All the best
> SUB Metadata Team
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >4. New-term proposal from DCMI Type Working Group (Rebecca Guenther)
> > -- Physical Object (for the DCMI Type Vocabulary)
> > http://epub.mimas.ac.uk/DC/type-physobj.html
>
>
>
> Dr. Heike Neuroth
> Goettingen State and University Library (SUB)
> Dept. SSG-FI, Renardus
> Papendiek 14
> 37073 Goettingen, GERMANY
> Tel.: +49 (0)551 393866
> Fax: +49 (0)551 395222
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:27:22 +0200
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Wei=DF=2C_Berthold=22?= <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: UB Proposal "Physical Object"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we agree to this proposal, but like the SUB Goettingen we think that there
> are missing types for persons, corporate bodies and concepts, including
> times. For geographica the type "physical object" could be used, but we
> think that they should be listed as an extra type.
>
> Best regards
> C. Hengel, B. Weiss
>
> _____________________________________________________
>
> Berthold Weiss
> Die Deutsche Bibliothek
> Deutsche Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main
> Office for Library Standards
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49-69-1525-1404
> Telefax: +49-69-1525-1010
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.ddb.de
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:10:25 +0100
> From: Ann M Wrightson <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: UB Proposal "Physical Object"
>
> However this is resolved, the UB should ensure that what DC does is not
> encroaching on "territory" for defining objects, extents and locations which
> belongs properly to other standardization perspectives.
> For example, geographical information systems standards, and engineering
> data standards, both have well developed concepts (much more complex than DC
> requires) - with further work in hand.
>
> Ann W.
>
>
> Ann M Wrightson MA MBCS
> Prif Ymgynghorydd / Principal Consultant
> alphaXML Cyf/Ltd
> http://www.alphaxml.com
> Gwasaneuthau XML: e-Lywodraeth, e-Fasnach, e-Gyhoeddi
> XML services to Government and Industry
|
