Colleagues,
As a newbie to this group, but as a person interested in metadata issues,
and as
a librarian, I would think that "custody/ownership and other questions
relation [sic] to
provenance" are very much in the sphere of recordkeeping as well as
discovery metadata. Other comments, please? Thank you.
Elizabeth B. Richmond, Assistant Professor
Reference Department
McIntyre Library
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Voice: (715) 836-4076
Fax: (715) 836-2949
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:35:34 +1100
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)
>Subject: RE: Bearman paper... Relations
>From: Andrew Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave dc-general' to [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: Andrew Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>David
>
>Forgive me if this seems naive but aren't custody/ownership and other
>questions relation to provenance more properly the domain of
>recordkeeping metadata, and nothing per se to do with discovery
>metadata? Aren't you trying to get DC to do a lot more than was
>originally intended?
>
>Andrew Wilson
>National Archives of Australia
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>Ph: +61 2 6212 3694
>Fax: + 61 2 6212 3997
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David Bearman
>> Sent: Friday, 22 January 1999 4:20
>> To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Bearman paper... Relations
>>
>>
>> Dear Robin,
>> Let me see if I can answer your questions about the relations
>> we proposed
>> in the January d-lib article
>> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/bearman/01bearman.html
>>
>> For background, as you know after the Helsinki meeting the Relations
>> Working group proposed five reciprocal relations:
>> - References / Is Referenced By (to point to other
>> information resources)
>> - IsBasedOn / IsBasisFor (to express intellectual derivation)
>> - IsVersionOf / HasVersion (to express historical evolution)
>> - Is Format Of / Has Format (to identify transformations of
>> media or layout)
>> - Is Part of / Has Part (to record Part/Whole)
>>
>> In the discussion with INDECS/DOI and the further development of the
>> XML/RDF model, as reported in this article, we found several other
>> relations which we felt would be needed.
>>
>> 1) The first of these was "Is".
>> You asked:
>> >Isn't Relation dyadic, or at the very least, not monadic? Shouldn't a
>> >relationship "between information resources" require
>> something on either
>> side >of the relation type operand? Establishing the
>> >Relation type "Is" to denote that the information resource
>> is original
>> seems a >bit twee.
>>
>> Yes. "Is" is dyadic. I suppose we should have written it
>> "Is/Is". The need
>> has been recognized implicitly since Warwick, since multiple metadata
>> authors might create metadata about the same resource, and
>> each might want
>> to point to each others metadata. We didn't expect a
>> metadata record to
>> point to itself, but to another metadata record purporting to
>> describe the
>> same thing. As for twee, I don't understand....
>>
>> 2) The next of these relations was
>> IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor.
>> We recognize that while some metadata records will be created by the
>> authors of the information resource they describe, most will
>> be created by
>> others such as librarians, publishers, database creators etc.
>> and that the
>> authenticity of the metadata is crucial to assessing it (see:
>> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june98/06bearman.html for extensive
>> discussion of
>> the rationale).
>>
>> You asked:
>> >IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor, IsOwnerOf/HasOwner -- Aren't
>> >these agent roles rather than relationship types? If information
>> >resources and agents are indistinguishable and what is
>> proposed here
>> >are appropriately new relation types, then we need a heck of lot
>> >of other relations (e.g., IsAuthorOf, IsEditorOf, IsTranslatorOf,
>> >Donated, WasKeyGripFor, SangInTheShower, etc.) What did you authors
>> >intend by adding just these two (or four) relation types?
>>
>> The value of the "creator" element (whether or not DC accepts
>> my proposal
>> regarding Agents) is the creator of the information resource, not the
>> creator of the metadata. Assuming we have a creator-type (or
>> better yet, an
>> Agent-type) that points to a role vocabulary, we would be
>> selecting roles
>> to describe the relation between the named agent/creator and
>> the resource,
>> not between the named agent/creator and the metadata.
>>
>> I suspect that what you are stumbling over here is something
>> implicit, and
>> new, in the article. In the INDECS/DOI discussions, as we
>> explained in our
>> use of the IFLA model, we ratified the fact that DC metadata
>> is about the
>> 'stuff'. What is implicit is that there is other metadata about
>> people/organizations, deals/agreements, vocabularies/schemas,
>> etc. which is
>> not described by DC. But it is linked to stuff...
>>
>> This is relevant to the question of IsOwnerOf/Has/Owner. The
>> DC elements
>> per se don't say anything about custody or ownership (and I
>> now see I've
>> allowed both of these to get confused in my definition, so
>> we'll need to
>> clarify it further in any pre DC2.0 discussion). What this relation
>> suggests is that pointing to metadata records about the
>> person/organization
>> which hold/own the information resource will be necessary for
>> many purposes.
>>
>> 3) Finally, you asked:
>> >IsMetadataFor/HasMetadata seems to be an explicit (and
>> explicitly desired)
>> >type of relation between information resources not proposed here.
>>
>> This I don't think I understand. The metadata record is the
>> metadata for
>> the information resource. Maybe what you are suggesting here
>> is the same
>> thing we meant by what we'll now call - Is/Is?
>>
>> Thanks for pushing this. There's lots of work to do, some of
>> which I hope
>> will go on in the scheme Harmonization working group, before the DC2.0
>> relations are all fully defined. What we're trying to do here
>> is make sure
>> that the elements, types and schemes we have in common are
>> shared across
>> all the communities that want to use them.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> David Bearman
>> President
>> Archives & Museum Informatics
>> 2008 Murray Ave, Suite D
>> Pittsburgh, PA 15217 USA
>> Phone: +1 412 422 8530
>> Fax: +1 412 422 8594
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.archimuse.com
>>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|