- From: MacKenzie Smith <kenzie@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:58:08 -0400
- To: Paul Shabajee <Paul.Shabajee@bristol.ac.uk>, "Tansley, Robert" <robert.tansley@hp.com>, "John S. Erickson" <john.erickson@hp.com>, www-rdf-dspace@w3.org
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/
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2003 19:58:43 UTC