Presentation on theme: "1:1 Reconsidered DC-6, November 4, 1998. History zJuly 97: RLG Metadata Summit yArchives, museums, libraries yIdentified need for flexible description."— Presentation transcript:
History zJuly 97: RLG Metadata Summit yArchives, museums, libraries yIdentified need for flexible description of resource manifestations yMetadata Summit: Meeting Report. Willy Cromwell-Kessler and Ricky Erway. July, 1997..
History zDC-5, Helsinki, October 97 yRLG proposal raised y1:1 principle emerges
1:1 Status zPublished in D-Lib Magazine yThe [DC-5] discussion resulted in consensus concerning what came to be known as the 1:1 principle -- each resource should have a discrete metadata description, and each metadata description should include elements relating to a single resource. It is desirable to be able to link these descriptions in a coherent and consistent manner [emphasis added]. yDC-5: The Helsinki Metadata Workshop: A Report on the Workshop and Subsequent Developments (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february98/02weibel.html)
1:1 Status zCrept into DC vocabulary zNot represented in RFC zLacks operational definition and application guidelines zAdoption by implementers uncertain
Our Best Understanding of 1:1 zAny given set of metadata refers to a single discrete resource
Implications of 1:1 zPrecise granularity zProliferation of metadata records yLarge retrieval sets yIncreased record maintenance zAccess vocabulary split over multiple records zConfusion applying selected elements, e.g., Creator, Publisher
Example zOne record for resource with compound characteristics yDigital image from photograph xMetadata conveys aspects of original resource (e.g., photographer), and xMetadata conveys aspects of digital manifestation (e.g., Format)
Example zOne record for multiple formats yElectronic text manifest in ASCII, Word, PDF xMetadata conveys aspects of each manifestation
Example zOne record for set of resources yCollection of images xMetadata conveys aspects of collection and each discrete resource
Summary zIf 1:1 (as we understand it) does not enable implementers to accomplish the requirements expressed above, specific expressed user needs are not addressed zIf 1:1 does enable implementers to accomplish the requirements expressed above, then the concept appears to accommodate user needs zRegardless...
Action Items zRevisit 1:1 zDetermine usefulness and necessity as a DC precept zEnsure that user needs are determined and addressed zFormally adopt, allow, or reject
Action Items zIf adopt, then: zDefine and ratify in RFC zDevelop application guidelines zMonitor implementation experiences and user satisfaction