On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jerome McDonough wrote:
> Jerry's answer-from-beyond-the-grave (at least that's how
> I'm feeling at the moment):
> > But for us METS folks: where is the best home for this information
> > abouttargets and calibration tones? With other techMD, as
> > suggested by the
> > NISO document? Or in digiprov? Since digiprov is not likely to
> > be used
> > by many METS practitioners, my mood is to say techMD.
> This definitely sounds like the kind of information we intended
> digiprov to hold: information helpful in allowing scholars/others
> determine what the original might have looked/sounded like, including
> definitive information about transformation processes involved
> AND processes employed which allow you to successfully map
> from pre-transformation to post-transformation. Other comment:
> digiprov certainly won't be used if we don't even use it for
> what it was intended for. I think we should be more concerned
> at this point about trying to arrange the information in ways
> that make sense; whether anyone wants to use particular portions
> when that process is done is a separate issue.
CARL: could make that argument. But NISO has already pushed us toward
techMD for targets. Dave Ackerman, if you are lurking, will AES put
calibration in the adminstrative block or the processing block.
Jerry, our view of digiprov (stolen idea from Dave Ackerman) is to make it
event-oriented, i.e., events are the first-order objects. It is about
process: PLAY the 78, EQUALIZE the sound, DIGITIZE in an a-to-d device,
RECORD on a workstation. Each event in the chain has an associated device
and person (and organization, etc etc). There is a sense in which MAKING
a calibration-tone set or SCANNING a target are related events, although
they are "about" the performance of the setup and operator more than
"about" the file. (THey can be "in" the file, to be sure.) So I am
comfortable either way (techMD or digiprovMD). But at the moment leaning
slightly in the opposite direction from you. We'll have plenty in
digiprov without the targets, I think.
> On another issue, Merrilee, if you're out there listening,
> could you ask Robin Dale if there was a reason byte order
> got left out of the tech. metadata in the NISO dictionary?
Let's hope Carl is correct and hasn't just overlooked something.
Best from Carl