I may be missing something in this discussion, but I don't see
how this differs from using "Source" for a book. The digital
resource is what the metadata is indexing. The original painting
and information associated with it belongs in "Source", the same as
a book on which an electronic resource is based.
Arthur
________________________________________________________________________________
Arthur D. Chapman [Scientific Coordinator, Biodiversity & Vegetationn, ERIN]
Environmental Resources Information Network internet: [log in to unmask]
GPO Box 787, Canberra, voice: +61-2-6274 1066
ACT 2601, AUSTRALIA fax: +61-2-6274 1333
>>
>> In the example that Ricky cites, it is easy enough for a human to
>> distinguish between the creator of the electronic surrogate and the
>> creator of the actual object, and the dates associated with each. In
>> other cases, it will not be so clear.
>
>What alternative do you suggest then? As I see it, people *will* be
>looking for the painting (or whatever resource it is), and will be
>*overjoyed* to find it, even if it doesn't come sticking out of their
>computer screen in all of its canvas glory. :-)
>
>I can't think of a single situation where putting in two metadata entries
>-- one for the original document, another for it digitized version -- would
>cause real problems. You seem to interpret the suggestion as implying that
>records that point to these objects would contain this metadata content. I
>got a totally different picture -- that only digitized versions of the
>original content would have the metadata corresponding to the original. I
>mean, as was said, if you're looking for a painting, you're not going to
>imediately think to type in "scanned image" instead, although that's
>exactly what your ultimate goal *is* (unless you have some kind of
>holodeck--like browser, where three-dimensional objects manifest themselves
>in real life (what a windfall *that'd* be for the porno sites! ;-> )
>
>Anyhoo, I certainly saw no confusion in the suggestion. I think an easy
>way to avoid any confusion at all is to mandate that any metadata using
>this technique must actually contain the content--ie, it must have a
>reproduction of the painting, or an online version of the book, or a visual
>representation of the sculpture, etc. I think it's enough to assume that
>if people are out looking for the real thing they'll go to the library or a
>museum.
>
>Here's a real-life example of where this sort of thing is used already.
>How many times have you come into a record (CD) store, and asked, "I'd like
>to find some nice classical operas", only to hear the store owner respond,
>shamefully, "I'm sorry. We only have CD-accessible digitized *versions* of
>operas which have been recorded either live or in a studio, but not the
>opera performances themselves". I'm guessing *never*. Because it's taken
>as a given that if you're going into a store that has only CD's, you're not
>going to take home Beethoven's Fifth--only a recording of it.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>[ Jordan Reiter ]
>[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ]
>[ "Don't you realize that intellectual people ]
>[ are all ignorant because they can't spray ]
>[ paint that small?" ]
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
|