RE: Proposed text for provenance section

I temporarily lost this thread, but no finish my position on this:

At 12:04 PM 7/8/2003 +0100, Paul Shabajee wrote:
>At present we have no evidence that those who actually manage archives 
>require the ability to track changes to the *descriptive* metadata over 
>time.  In traditional library/information management systems logs are kept 
>around to track metadata changes temporarily, but it's just not considered 
>important to the core mission of managing the \emph{content} over time. 
>Schemas change, contexts change, resources get described in myriad ways 
>(all at the same time), people make mistakes, fix them, we add stuff, we 
>remove stuff, and libraries do not track all this. It is therefore 
>difficult to predict the potential value(s) and uses of such data and 
>functionality in practice.
>
>However there are some newer kinds of metadata for which the community do 
>seem to want to track provenance; namely, preservation metadata, i.e. 
>capturing and preserving provenance metadata related to preservation 
>activities -- i.e. what was done to the digital object over time in order 
>to preserve it.


Is exactly where I stand on the matter... the requirement to capture
metadata provenance metadata (:-), in the sense of the *source* of a
piece of metadata, is there. The requirement to track every change
to it over time is *not* there for descriptive metadata, but *is* there
for administrative/technical/preservation metadata.

MacKenzie/