What Paul said.
1:1 grew out of a need for guiding principles. There have been a number of
good examples of how it fails, but as Ricky points out, even those who
oppose it as a *rule* probably can buy into it as a guide.
Is there anyone who would care to distill the arguments into a principle
that can promote good practice while acknowledging that blind adherence that
forces us to do silly things (like promoting a person who scans a photograph
to the same level as one who took it) is inimical to good retrieval?
stu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ricky Erway [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 1:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: 1:1 debate
>
> REPLY TO 04/22/99 07:20 FROM [log in to unmask]: RE: 1:1 debate
>
> Paul said
> "1:1 is an idea, not a law."
>
> I like the idea (and more often than not practice it). I just hate
> the law. It seems to me to be the only law in all of Dublin Core
> land. But if I can populate DC elements describing two resources
> (photo and scan) in the same "record" then, hey, it's not a problem!
>
> I presume you are working up a way to group the elements. What gets
> confusing is when the JPEG image is part of the HTML document to
> which the metadata is attached and the original Adams hangs on a wall
> someplace. The 1:1 chanters make people afraid to describe the one
> on the wall in a 'record' attached to the other.
>
> Ricky
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|