If I understand you correctly, Simon, we agree.
I did accept the notion that a DC record could describe a resource on the
net which was a person or a computer and no a surrogate, but otherwise Type
should be a digital resource, whose properties we are interested in inorder
to get to it/at it.
At 09:28 AM 7/16/98 -0500, Simon Pockley wrote:
>>I'm concerned about the examples given for physical objects
>
>Surely the important point here is that where a digital surrogate is created
>from a physical object, reference to that object, is either through the
> `Relation' or `Source' elements or both. The `Type' is the type of digital
>resource. When these resources are displayed on-line they usually become
> compound/mixed types (sound, text, image, animation, etc).
>
>The most valuable information that can be supplied about a mixed type is the
>format and system requirements needed to run it. Looking ahead: it is not so
>much about finding the stuff as about being able to access it (there is a
>difference). If the `Type' element requires that these mixed resources are to
>be deconstructed into their parts i.e. a list of image formats and text types
>etc, then we must also ask how this is to be done (by hand or machine) and
for
>what reason?
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>Simon Pockley - Cinemedia (http://www.cinemedia.net)
>3 Treasury Place Melbourne Australia [voice] 61 3 96511510
>([log in to unmask])
>
>
>
David Bearman
President
Archives & Museum Informatics
5501 Walnut St., Suite 203
Pittsburgh, PA 15232
tel. +1-412-683-9775; fax +1-412-683-7366
http://www.archimuse.com
|