Stu said:
>If Camp 1 is about those who would restrict their deployment of
>metadata to embedded metadata, and will never extract such data into
>a seperate database, and expect no one else to harvest such metadata
>as surrogates, then I think it will be a small camp with limited
>prospects for interoperability.
>
>I do not believe that is what Ricky was describing but I hope she
>will respond with a clarification.
I've been napping, but am back on board. Here's how I defined the
two camps:
camp1) those who wish to use Dublin Core either for improved
discovery of web resources or as common access points across
varieties of web and non-web resources
camp2) those who want to use Dublin Core as the basis for the
development of sophisticated systems for very specific descriptive
and functional requirements within a given domain
among camp1 issues, I listed:
--collection/item and physical/digital distinctions
--undesirability of the 1:1 requirement
--ramifications of converted rather than created DC records
--means for searching across distinct resources
--camp1 interoperability across dissimilar camp2 implementations
I think camp1 consists of BOTH those who would embed metadata in web
pages to enhance discovery AND those who would use it as "a commonly
understood set of descriptors that helps to unify other data content
standards" and that "is sufficiently flexible to represent resources
(and relationships among resources) that are both digital and exist
in traditional formats as well".
And I believe the 1:1 "requirement" is moot in any camp.
Ricky
Camp2 carries a Right Angle Ratcheting Screwdriver whereas camp1
carries a Swiss Army Knife, The Right Angle Ratcheting Screwdriver is
designed for a specific purpose -- one where the screwdriver on a
Swiss Army Knife would be worthless. But the Right Angle Ratcheting
Screwdriver is pretty worthless for filing your fingernails or
opening a bottle of wine...
To: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|