This is further to my message of 28th July under the subject heading [RDA-L] Metadata terms in RDA.
I have been studying the Dublin Core, using the information on its web site. The following are my comments and questions. These are written from the perspective of an ordinary cataloguer, familiar with AACR and DDC. I have no hidden agenda. My only object is to learn. While I hope that my thoughts may be of interest to others, I speak for no one but myself. Comments. There is more to DC than the fifteen terms of the metadata element set, because there are forty additional elements and element refinements. Among the systems listed as encoding schemes are DDC, UDC, LCC and LCSH. DC has a 'type' vocabulary consisting of twelve terms, corresponding loosely to AACR's general material designations. The DC's abstract model consists of three elements, namely the resource model, the description set model and the vocabulary model. There are encoding guidelines, including those for expressing Dublin Core metadata using the Resource Description Framework (RDF). This is what would be used for RDA. In order to express the DC property (element)/value pair in terms of the RDF triple (subject, predicate, object), the following accommodation is made. The RDF subject corresponds to the DC resource, the RDF predicate corresponds to the DC property and the RDF object corresponds to the DC value. There are RDF schemas for Dublin Core. There is a user guide. It states the goals of DC to be simplicity of creation and maintenance, commonly understood semantics, international scope, extensibility. It provides guidelines for how to deal with the DC elements and qualifiers and has an appendix on roles. It has a glossary of terms and a bibliography. Questions. A Data Model Meeting was held at the British Library in London from April 30th to May 1st 2007. At the meeting it was decided to seek funds to develop an RDA/DC application profile using FRBR and FRAD as models. This would require the preparation of an RDA element vocabulary and of RDA value vocabularies. My questions are derived from the outcomes of the meeting. Why is it necessary to develop a separate application profile when DC already has a model, schemas, a user guide and encoding guidelines? How will the present unfinished state of RDA, FRBR and FRAD affect the proposed developments? What changes will be sought to these standards in order to maximize the quality of the vocabularies and application profile? RDA contains many terms of use in a metadata schema. Will other systems be consulted in the preparation and organization of the vocabularies? I think particularly of the faceted classification that was prepared for use with Library Science Abstracts. In terms of a metadata system, AACR would be seen as essentially the user guide element. RDA is intended to replace AACR. Will the role of RDA be extended to include other parts of the system? Will it be reduced to confine RDA to being a user guide? An important principle of Dublin Core is the one-to-one principle. The record (metadata description set) covers one manifestation of a resource. How will the projected system deal with the other RDA/FRBR group one entities of work, expression and item? It is still planned to publish RDA in 2009. Is this likely to be in a conventional version, or is it possible that the metadata form will be ready by then? Am I right in thinking that, when the metadata form becomes available, the conventional form will be withdrawn? Philip Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------- For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
