As Mike says, "One man's data is another's metadata."
In Eliot's GILS set he makes a threefold distinction for bibliographic
The 'work' (eg The Chroniques of Jehan Froissart)
An instance (eg Pierpont Morgan M.804)
A catalog record (a surrogate in the Morgan catalog for the instance)
Which seems a very reasonable distinction to make, and could easily apply
to non bibliographic data as well.
Each of these might have a date associated with it. A date for the
original, a date for the printing, and a date for the cataloguing.
They all have different creators as well: Froissart, an unknown scribe,
and the cataloguer at the Morgan who described the manuscript.
Currently in CQL we have the dc context set and a (somewhat substandard)
rec context set for metadata about records. However this doesn't provide
for anything other than searching the catalog record and for information
about that record. We still have a modeling problem when it comes to
distinguishing the 'meta'ness of our data.
My proposal is to add a new relation modifier to the CQL context set
called, for example, 'level'
This would be used to determine the level of metaness to apply the search
For example, to use a simple case of author vs cataloguer:
dc.creator any/level=work "tolkien asimov"
dc.creator any/level=metadata "sanderson taylor"
dc.date any/level=work "1336"
dc.date any/level=instance "1420"
dc.date any/level=metadata "2004"
Then we can ditch a lot of the indexes from 'rec' which don't sync well
with the indexes from dc (for example)
eg: rec.lang vs dc.language
rec.id vs dc.identifier
rec.createdBy vs dc.creator
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I