Please see comments below.
Cliff
3.6. Other Contributor Label: "Contributor"
A person or organization not specified in a Creator element who
has made significant intellectual contributions to the resource
but whose contribution is secondary to any person or organization
specified in a Creator element (for example, editor, transcriber,
and illustrator).
>I have found this to be a potentially confusing descriptor. The
intuitive
>interpretation of the tag is "co-author", but this isn't what's meant
in DC.
>"Contributor" is
>a term that is frequently used in the industry to mean, for example,
the author
>of a chapter or a journal or magazine article - i.e. the person
responsible for
>the primary origination (creation), not secondary massaging or
embellishment.
>My reading of DC Simple is that co-authors (i.e. multiple primary
contributors to
>a work) should be treated as repeated Creators, not Contributors.
>Unfortunately, I don't have a neat alternative suggestion for a term
that would
>encompass "editor", "translator" and "illustrator". I do understand
that all of
>these people make a contribution to the work (either to the original
work or to a
>later incarnation), but they are not what is generally understood by
the word
>"contributor". How about "Associate" or "Auxiliary"?
>
3.11. Source Label: "Source"
Information about a second resource from which the present resource
is derived. While it is generally recommended that elements contain
information about the present resource only, this element may contain
a date, creator, format, identifier, or other metadata for the second
resource when it is considered important for discovery of the present
resource; recommended best practice is to use the Relation element
instead. For example, it is possible to use a Source date of 1603 in
a description of a 1996 film adaptation of a Shakespearean play, but
it is preferred instead to use Relation "IsBasedOn" with a reference
to a separate resource whose description contains a Date of 1603.
Source is not applicable if the present resource is in its original
form.
>This is one of those "please settle an argument" pleas:-) Let's say
you publish a >journal in both print and various electronic forms (e.
g. PDF, HTML, XML). What goes >under "Source" and what under
"Relation"? "Source is not applicable if the present >resource is in
its original form" - but what's the original form, and how different
>does something have to be to be regarded as a second resource? If the
print version >is regarded as the
definitive/authenticated/authorised/published/official form, and >the
PDF is a straight, unenhanced version of this, do you put nothing
under Source >and "IsPartOf Journal of X, Vol Y, Issue Z" under
Relation? Or do you put "Journal >of X, Vol Y, Issue Z, pp a to b"
under Source? What if the PDF is enhanced in some >way, e.g. internal
hyperlinks or colour for B&W? What about the electronic versions >that
do not mimic the presentation of the print version but contain exactly
the same >intellectual content? What if the electronic versions
contain extra content >(multimedia, extra datasets, executable
programs)? What if the text has been >"mildly" corrected, e.g. typos
only, nothing substantial? What if text has been more >substantially
corrected, e.g. updated? Would we end up having versions 1.0, 1.1,
>1.1.1, 2.0 etc.
>Maybe someone could indicate how these various options (versions and
manifestations) >would be coded up. You might also want to consider
preprints - unauthorised, >unedited versions of the eventual published
version - and translations: which >version is the source?
>Regards
>Cliff Morgan
>John Wiley & Sons Ltd
>Chichester, UK
|