That was "thank you so much" not "that you so much." Sorry. (The latter sounds painful.)
kc Karen Coyle wrote:
Irvin, that you so much for your post. (I have to moderate comments to my blog, which is why you don't see them appear right away. It's the only way I have to avoid spam there.) I may have over-simplified DCAM's case, but to make sure I've got it, I am now settling down with it for another scintillating evening's entertainment. I'll get back to you if/when I reach clarity. I will also take advantage of ALA midwinter to tap some other minds on this topic. And, Jonathan, you and I are on the same page -- we need to move this out of RDA, but we also need very much to address it in the near future in our data carrier. The hard thing is explaining WHY we need to, so I'll try to work up a post on that as well. kc Flack, Irvin wrote:<<<Karen Coyle wrote... I have posted more on the use of literals and non-literals in RDA on my blog: http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/ Here is my conclusion:...>>> [Karen, thanks very much for this analysis. I added this as a comment on your blog but I'm not sure if it registered so I'll post it here too] One initial comment: I've been going back over the DCAM document and I don't think your definitions clearly bring out the distinction DCAM makes between the value itself and the surrogate used to represent that value. DCAM[1] has both a Resource Model (sect 2.1), which includes 'values' as entities -- and a Description Set Model (sect 2.2), which includes the surrogates representing the values. The values themselves -- literal or non-literal -- never appear in a description, only surrogates for them. So the first step for RDA should be to decide whether the value (in the abstract sense of the DCAM Resource Model) for each property is a literal or a non-literal. Then we can say whether the value should be represented by a literal surrogate (if a literal value) or a non-literal surrogate (if a non-literal value) in a description. And so on for each of the properties in RDA. The author of the work Moby Dick is a non-literal value (the person, Herman Melville) and therefore should be represented by a non-literal surrogate. The title proper ('Moby-Dick, or, The whale') of a manifestation of the work is a literal value and therefore should be represented by a literal surrogate (the character string 'Moby-Dick, or, The whale'). Looking quickly at what DC has chosen for the ranges for its properties[2], my impression is that only Title and Date properties have literal values (and I think Title, from other discussions I've read, is still controversial). -Irvin [1]http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/ [2]http://dublincore.org/documents/domain-range/ Irvin Flack Metadata Librarian Learning Technology Standards Centre for Learning Innovation Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cli.nsw.edu.au NSW Department of Education and Training ********************************************************************** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. **********************************************************************-- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
-- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------
