Metalogger

June 12, 2009

2 Comments

  1. Hi Neil, thanks for the great post! I think in some instances, pictorial metadata might be considered as intellectual content in their own right, since there’s artistic effort (framing, camera angle etc) undertaken by the image creator to capture a visual surrogate of a monument. In this case, though these records intended as metadata, wouldn’t they possess intrinsic artistic value that might be worthy of preservation? Among the schemas you’ve suggested, CDWA seems to be most suited for pictorial datasets, and offers the level of granularity that is required in, say monument restoration.

    Comment by Aaron Tan — June 23, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

  2. Hi Aaron,

    I had originally been thinking CDWA would be the way we would go and in fact my MODS schema is in many respects a crosswalk from the work I had done on CDWA.

    Each record will contain several hundreds (up to thousands in some cases) of photographs, which will be updated annually, and filed with brief captions and grouped according to angle/defect of the monument photographed. I can imagine them being retrieved mostly on the basis of a “title” and “defect” linking words. These photos are for preservation monitoring. (Other photos with multiple purposes are in the 2 volumes of preservation guidelines. We might want to revise our initial thoughts treating these as normal volumes.)

    I’m still open to other inputs, however.

    Many thanks
    Neil

    Comment by neilgodfrey — June 23, 2009 @ 12:45 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

%d bloggers like this: