Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request clarification in documentation regarding how terms apply to individual resources vs. collections #48

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this issue Mar 13, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link

1. Provide an ac Term Name or Label. This applies to all terms which might 
reasonably be applied to both multimedia resources and multimedia collections 
but which don't specify how they apply to each, e.g. xmp:CreateDate

2. Describe the defect or lack of clarity you find in the term. 

'AC is defined as "a set of vocabularies designed to represent metadata for 
biodiversity multimedia resources and collections". While many terms have some 
guidance on how the term applies (or not) to a "multimedia resource" vs. 
"multimedia collections", not all terms display that guidance (e.g., 
xmp:CreateDate). I imagine that the larger a collection becomes, the harder it 
is to have a single value for most of the terms (e.g., dcterms:rights, 
ac:captureDevice, ac:providerID). Would it be possible for each term to display 
information on its applicability to "multimedia resource" vs. "multimedia 
collections", e.g. when to use repeatability of terms for describing 
collections?'  Quote from email from Andréa Matsunaga <ammatsun@acis.ufl.edu> 

Original issue reported on code.google.com by steve.ba...@vanderbilt.edu on 3 Apr 2013 at 8:12

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Apr 2013 at 1:04

  • Added labels: Component-Docs, Type-Enhancement

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

Ouch. This is a good idea but a big task. I suggest instead getting a TDWG task 
group together to make a Best Practices for Describing Collections with Audubon 
Core.  I think it probably needs some of the expertise of those who worked on 
NCD.

I am closing this as WontFix. Others can reopen it if they disagree.

Original comment by morris.bob on 5 Jun 2013 at 2:58

  • Changed state: WontFix
  • Added labels: Milestone-Release1.0

@GoogleCodeExporter
Copy link
Author

At least as guidance, we could cite the Key to Nature document, which documents 
the best practices. See
http://www.keytonature.eu/wiki/Metadata_agreement#Tabular_list_of_metadata_field
s
lefthand column.

Original comment by g.m.hage...@gmail.com on 5 Jun 2013 at 6:28

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant