On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Pete Johnston wrote:
>
> In effect this is the process that has taken place for the MARC relator codes,
> but it was a fairly trivial case, as by definition they represent types of
> relationship (between a resource and an agent) and fit neatly into the binary
> relation model of RDF. It's still taken an awfully long time though!
Looking at MARC relator codes they ca be used in various ways in MARC
records, not necessarily in relation to an 'agent', they can be used with
'subjects' of a resource too e.g. with
600 $4 (Subject Added Entry -- Personal Name / Relator code)
610 $4 (Subject Added Entry -- Corporate Name / Relator code)
611 $4 (Subject Added Entry -- Meeting Name / Relator code)
see http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relators.html
I just mention this as it seems a point of difference in the way these
'properties' are use in DC as opposed to MARC. And I would say by re-using
MARC relator codes DC is 'cherry-picking' from MARC, which you denigrate
wrt re-use of MODS?
> But reuse has to happen within a consistent, coherent framework. The analogy I
> think I used at one point was Meccano parts and Lego bricks: I can build nice
> things with Meccano and I can build nice things with Lego.
>
> But no matter how desperately I might want to reuse my nice funky bit of my
> Meccano spaceship in my Lego submarine, it wasn't designed to fit. If we try to
> encourage reuse regardless we'll end up with our submarines leaking and the nose
> cones falling off our spaceships.
>
Nice analogy, but I don't think anyone is saying we encourage re-use
'regardless' of differences in formats, informed people are saying we
think these particular terms are equivalent in the way they are used, can
we do something about it??.
And taking your analogy a little further away from the well ordered
playroom where kids put their Meccano in one box and their Lego in
another... In digital library world metadata created using different
standards/models is exchanged between applications, and to do this is
converted more or less effectively. So just like little kids out there
bashing their toys together, throwing them into the wrong box and often
breaking them, conversions can be more or less 'lossy'. Toys are being
broken now, data is already getting lost on conversion.
The benefit of re-use is that the metadata creator, the owners of the
metadata formats and the world in general buy into an agreement 'we agree
these 2 data elements as more or less equivalent, we think you should do
the same'. This is as opposed to creating more and more conversion
programmes mapping between different data elements.
I would say piecemeal re-use is a step towards interoperability...
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN, University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 386724
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk
|