On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:10, Karen Coyle wrote: > > Tom, > > While these statements are quite reasonable, they don't apply well to the actual practices of the library community. There is no 'wild' of library metadata, no users taking it in different directions for their own purposes, no re-interpretation by creative souls. There is little creation of metadata outside of standards-based library systems, which are expressly required to enforce the standards, and which will only accept data that meets the standards. True, but libraries still have data of various quality, and other parties make metadata about objects you might find in libraries. I favor application profiles; FRBR is already being used in non-library contexts, and as danbri says, ontology users don't necessarily "read the instruction manual". Enforcing stricter constraints on library-produced data makes sense; from there it's a question of the best way to accomplish it. > What this all comes down to is that if we take the view that library metadata must embrace different principles than it does today in order for libraries to interact on the Web, then we've got a non-starter. I think I understand what you mean, but I worry about this way of expressing it, because I worry that the principles and procedures may be entangled with one another. -Jodi
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 08:04:04 UTC