One of the fundamental challenges in using metadata to describe digitized images and objects is discerning exactly what it is you are describing. This isn't necessarily in a "I have no idea what that's a picture of" sense (though there's also that problem), but more so in determining which version of an object you are entering information for. For example, if you have a digital picture of the Mona Lisa, what types of information would you expect to be displayed as metadata? For some, perhaps many, myself included, we would expect to see the title "Mona Lisa," the creator or artist listed as "Leonardo da Vinci," or "Da Vinci, Leonardo"...we might even expect to see dimensions for the original painting, information about the materials utilized, and a date in the 1500s. Easy enough, right?
If we were to take that same digital image, however, and then use it on our website, blog, or in a school assignment, what would we cite? More than likely, we would be listing the site we took the image from, the date it was copyrighted, and perhaps even who the rights of the image belonged to. Here's were metadata for digital items starts to get complicated, because that image of the Mona Lisa is actually a distinctly different entity than the Mona Lisa itself. Both have unique creators, formats, sizes/dimensions, creation dates, and locations, among other descriptive information. You can see why this may start to get confusing for metadata creators and users alike.
The principle that guides us (sort of) through this confusing situation is known as the One-to-One Principle. According to the DCMI Wiki, the One-to-One Principle "dictates that a metadata description should refer to just one resource." The Wiki goes on to elaborate that the principle was created to ensure "that distinct resources be identified, distinguished, and described separately, as in the case of the original "Mona Lisa", created in 1506 by Leonardo da Vinci, and a photograph of "Mona Lisa" created in 2008 by John Smith" (I really did pick the Mona Lisa at random, honest). The point seems fairly clear, however, digital images of original materials should have metadata that reflects the digital image's creation, not that of the object being captured. The reasons for this are fairly compelling, actually, as it provides attribution of the digital image to the person and circumstances that actually created it. If we were to ignore this contribution, and focus on the original object, we actually obliterate the digital image as a distinct informational object. When we consider the proliferation of digital and digitized documents, ensuring that we preserve the integrity of distinct informational objects should be of prime importance.
In practice, however, the One-to-One Principle may not be so cut and dried. The DCMI Wiki makes the point that the notion can be very subjective, and indeed, it is sometimes difficult to determine what exactly constitutes a unique resource. Beyond those technicalities, however, there is also the problem that conforming to the principle can sometimes be confusing for users. Does someone looking for a picture of the Mona Lisa want to see the details of John Smith's photograph, or do they want the details of the famous da Vinci canvas? Do the preferences of the user really matter in describing information resources (be careful, consider why we do it in the first place). Is there a way to reflect both sets of information, without overloading users (some metadata elements can serve the purpose, but there's a limit to what you probably should include in them)? What do you think about the merits of the One-to-One Principle? What information do you want to see when you are browsing through digital items?
No comments:
Post a Comment