From a records management perspective, the discussion of object database models is very interesting. A friend of mine who works in records management is taking programming classes right now because her employer is attempting to consolidate her job with that of a database programmer. Whether or not a similar fate is in store for archivists (and librarians) is worth thinking about.
I also am intrigued by the ideas of memory management and storage topology mentioned briefly in the article. Conversations about storage requirements vs. ease of use seem to be happening across the information field; organizational methods for databases seem pertinent to such debates.
Introduction to Metadata - Setting the Stage by Anne J. Gilliland
The article has an informative explanation of archival description as it compares to the perspectives of libraries and museums towards metadata. I was also interested, but not surprised, to learn that the integration goal of MOAC has been unsuccessful. The needs of libraries, archives, and museums seem too broad to be successfully forced into one metadata system. This quote speaks well to that idea: “There is no single metadata standard that is adequate for describing all types of collections and materials; selection of the most appropriate suite of metadata standards and tools, and creation of clean, consistent metadata according to those standards, not only will enable good descriptions of specific collection materials but also will make it possible to map metadata created according to different community-specific standards, thus furthering the goal of interoperability.”
Also, I found the article’s depiction of popular metadata techniques as potentially alienating to the communities the archives is meant to serve very surprising. Of course it’s true that a typical archives user is a historian doing research, but do archives help perpetuate that norm by making it harder for people to walk in off the street and find what they’re looking for? Is there a way to make the archives more useable without disturbing their contextual integrity?
An Overview of the Dublin Core Data Model
The list of functionality requirements for the Dublin Core Data Model makes important points, I think, towards supporting diversity for broadly-encompassing metadata so that the needs of different institutions are met without impeding each other. Namespaces seem particularly useful, for example, as the word “records” has very different meanings across institutions.
I’d be interested to read more about this model, because it seems both useful and hindering in terms of meaning and the usability of the data. Hopefully we talk some about this in class.
No comments:
Post a Comment