<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace">Good points. There
seems to be a lot of potential use for dc:creator. However, one
thing to consider is that </font><font face="Courier New,
Courier, monospace">dc:creator implies IPR issues. "observer" or
"recorder" would be more neutral.</font><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier, monospace"><br>
For the specimen there is dwc:collector, although it is being used
also for observations where nothing was collected, and where
dwc:identifiedby might be a bit more correct, semantically.<br>
<br>
Hannu<br>
</font><br>
On 2011-01-14 16:29, Steve Baskauf wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D305DBF.10303@vanderbilt.edu" type="cite">It
seems to me that part of the problem here is that there are
several types of resources that are being mixed. There is the
specimen itself, there is the image of the specimen, and there is
the metadata record. The person digitizing the specimen is the
dc:creator of the specimen image. The collector of the specimen
or the collector's institution is the dc:creator of the specimen.
The person entering the metadata into the computer or that
person's institution is the dc:creator of the metadata record. Of
course a lot of people aren't going to care about this level of
detail in keeping separate records for those three types of
resources. But those same people also probably aren't going to
care about keeping separate records of who all of the different
creators are either. <br>
The same kind of issue exists with other terms, such as
dc:language and dcterms:created. If you specify dc:language, is
that the language on the specimen label, the language of other
things on the image (like text on added scale bars), or the
language of the metadata? Again, I think the solution is to be
clear about what resource one is talking about rather than to try
to come up with separate terms for creator, language, and created
for three different types of resources. <br>
Steve
<br>
<br>
Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Using Creator is ok for the person
digitizing the specimen (although
<br>
contributor may be more appropriate), but the person who
originally
<br>
wrote the label is an dc:creator as well.
<br>
<br>
dcterms are meant to have a wide scope and by information-lossy.
My
<br>
comment is only: do not define: if there is a dc:creator, then
it was
<br>
the person who digitized.
<br>
<br>
Gregor
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
tdwg-content mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>