- 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