The Mona Lisa example (a person named Mona Lisa, a painting, a
libretto) is a red herring. These are separate works and no one
would expect anything other than 1:1 description.
The objection many of us have with 1:1 is in requiring 1:1
description for versions and derivatives. I want to be able to use a
single DC record to describe a digital image of an Ansel Adams
photograph. If I am not allowed to say in a single record that the
photographer is Ansel Adams and that the image is JPEG-compressed,
then I'll break the rules rather than create a record for the
negative, for the print, for the copy-photograph of the print, for
the TIFF image, and for my various JPEG derivatives.
Not only is this use of 1:1 cumbersome for metadata creators, but if
I put an image of an Ansel Adams photo up on the web and take the
time to create metadata for the purpose of discovery, I sure want
someone searching for Ansel Adams photos to find my image. I have
little confidence that, in the near term, indexing/retrieval software
would be able to follow relationships amongst a snarl of related
records to point that person to the record that lists as creator the
person who reformatted the TIFF image (that was scanned from the copy
photo, that was...)
I embrace good rules and eschew bad ones,
Ricky
Ricky Erway, RLG
To: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|