To head off further confusion, I've edited
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Metadata/types.html to point to the current
position paper.
Roy
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Debbie Campbell wrote:
> Jane,
> this update was previously posted to the list, but just in case you didn't
> see it:
>
> This is a follow-up to the issues list from my mail of 1998-07-23
> (quoted below).
>
> Latest version of DC.Type position paper is now at
> http://www.agcrc.csiro.au/projects/3018CO/metadata/dc_tf/type_3.html
>
> -----------
> There have been no additional substantial issues raised.
>
> 1. Off-line and Surrogates
>
> Additional discussion including examination of some examples
> has shown that the 1:1 principal can be used consistently,
> although there are some fine distinctions to be made at times.
> A recent CIMI meeting raised some related issues.
> However, no proposals to change the position paper for
> DC.Type have emerged to date.
>
> 2. Data -> Dataset
>
> I have changed this in the latest draft.
>
> 3. Image
>
> There have been no comments supporting a change of this token to graphic, so
> I have reverted to "image" in the latest draft.
>
> 4. Video + Film
>
> It appears to be accepted that these are a subdivision of
> "image" rather than a type in their own right.
>
> 5. Reference to Previous work
>
> Discussion are continuing.
>
> -------------
> Here is the 1998-07-23 message regarding DC.Type issues:
> >
> > One week has elapsed since the position paper on DC.Type
> > from the Type & Format working group was posted.
> >
> > I have detected the following issues raised:
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 1. Off-line and Surrogates
> >
> > The 1:1 principle is still not fully understood,
> > in particular in regard to _off-line_ resources.
> > We need to develop more examples illustrating the use of
> > DC metadata for both physical objects _and_ digital surrogates of these.
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 2. Data
> >
> > There is a concern that "data" is not sufficiently distinctive.
> > The definition could be improved by adding the adjective
> > _structured_ in order to differentiate it from
> > _unstructured_ things that are "text".
> >
> > Perhaps change the token to "dataset".
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 3. Image and other symbolic notations
> >
> > Questions about where _maps_ and _musical_notation_ fit
> > exposed the need to improve the definition and examples for "image".
> > Perhaps use "symbolic visual representation".
> > This type should also not be restricted to 2D.
> >
> > Perhaps change the token to "graphic".
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 4. Video
> >
> > Is video OK as "image/graphic" ...?
> >
> > What is video?
> > i. format rather than type information ...?
> > ii. "moving pictures" - in which case type "image/graphic" is fine
> > iii. "moving pictures with sound" - this is the compound/mixed issue:
> > use an additional DC.Type="sound" if the sound is a major aspect.
> > (NB. lots of video (particularly on the web) is silent.)
> >
> > Lots of the classifications are not strictly orthogonal anyway.
> > The parsimony principle argues against adding types willy-nilly.
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > I've posted a new version of the DC.Type position paper
> > revised by me to incorporate some of these changes at
> >
> > http://www.agcrc.csiro.au/projects/3018CO/metadata/dc_tf/type_2.html
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > 5. Previous work
> >
> > Meanwhile, Erik Jul has observed that the list of Types is not
> > properly grounded in an analysis of previous related work
> > in this area. This has two implications:
> > (i) the taxonomy may not be fully robust
> > (ii) there is a risk of a credibility gap wrt some of our target
> communities
> >
> > Rebecca and I have fessed up and thought about this a little.
> > Here's my attempt at a summary of the points raised:
> >
> > - "Type" is not alone in DC in proposing semantics without
> > explicitly indicating antecedents
> > - the DC community has frequently appeared to reinvent such a wheel,
> > but this is not necessarily totally wierd since a cross
> > community "lingua franca" needs to encompass more general
> > concepts than those of any specific community
> > - this DC simple list is unusual in that it does attempt to cover
> > such a wide range with such a small number of terms;
> > besides, it has stood up to most empirical tests over a number of
> months now
> > - some specific comparisons have been attempted (MARC)
> > but was found to be rather difficult since there was a
> > correspondence with multiple MARC fields,
> > frequently dealing with different levels of granularity
> > - the problem will almost certainly be less stark for more
> > refined DC with external vocabularies used explicitly through
> "schemes"
> >
> > Meanwhile:
> >
> > Erik:
> > > there must be a handful of reference
> > > sources, dictionaries, standards whose entries we we examine, compile,
> > > and compare. MARC is one. There are others. First step would be to
> > > compile a list of potential resources. Sounds like a good reference
> > > question for a librarian somewhere.
> >
> > Rebecca:
> > > With that said, it is probably worth the effort. The
> > > problem of course is, who has time? Not a good excuse, I know. Maybe we
> > > need a game plan and each of us take various groups to see what they've
> > > done.
> >
> > I think (hope) Rebecca and Erik are working on it ...
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________
> Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
> CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
> T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]
> http://www.ned.dem.csiro.au/SimonCox/
>
>
> Debbie Campbell
> Metadata Coordinator
> National Initiatives And Collaboration Branch
> ph. 02 6262 1673
> fx. 02 6273 1180
> e-mail [log in to unmask]
> http://purl.nla.gov.au/metaweb/home
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jane Rundquist[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, 31 August 1998 7:29 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: DC Element "Type"
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am interested in the status of the enumerated list approach for the DC
> > element "Type". The "Syntax" paper on it says that " For the sake
> > of interoperability, Type should be selected from an enumerated
> > list that is currently under development in the workshop series" This
> > page
> > used to also say "See http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Metadata/types.html for
> > current thinking on the application of this element" which is how I got to
> > this page.
> >
> > I checked the "Workshop" section at
> > http://purl.oclc.org/metadata/dublin_core/ and it doesn't list any
> > workshops going on or give any links to the enumerated list. Is this a
> > "Catch 22?"
> >
> > Any information would be greatly appreciated. I am doing work with
> > various
> > govt agencies to try and bring currently accepted DC metadata standards to
> > their online documents.
> >
> > Thank-you.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
