While the use assumptions Bill articulates may be inherent in Aquifer plans
for OAI-PMH (though I'm not even sure that's true), it is not inherent in
OAI-PMH itself. 

We can anticipate (and are already beginning to see) OAI-based services that
are designed to do more significant work with harvested metadata before or
even instead of redirecting end-users back to original source full-content
repositories. Analytical services over harvested metadata and potentially
full content, services that look to de-dup or uncover and exploit new
relationships between objects, other services that may do extensive work
with harvested metadata and/or associated full-content before or instead of
pointing end-users back to original source repository can all (potentially
at least) be implemented using OAI-PMH. Such more sophisticated OAI-based
services may have reason to want to know explicitly the source of title
values in harvested metadata records -- it may matter to some OAI-based
services, if not now, then at some point in the future. I don't think
generic consideration of OAI-PMH sheds light on this question.

So, while I agree with Jenn and Bill that the assumptions embedded in the
Aquifer Metadata Working Group's current draft recommendation should be
recognized as having limited scope, I would not put any assumption about
whether source of title matters off on OAI-PMH. OAI-PMH does not make
assumptions at this level about metadata transported using the Protocol.
("The nature of a resource, whether it is physical or digital, or whether it
is stored in the repository or is a constituent of another database, is
outside the scope of the OAI-PMH") This is how people got started thinking
of OAI-PMH as synonymous with DC. 

This point is a bit orthogonal to main thrust of this thread, but I didn't
want to let Bill's earlier assertion pass without comment.

Tim Cole
University of Illinois at UC 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Landis
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MODS] Question: Source of title
> 
> Amy -
> 
> I wanted to add one bit to Jenn's advice. I think it is 
> important to remember that the context for the DLF MODS 
> Implementation guidelines is specifically "for use in 
> describing digital cultural heritage and humanities-based 
> scholarly resources that are to be shared within the Aquifer 
> Initiative and wider" (p. 3). The current way that these 
> records get shared is via the OAI-PMH, which has as a 
> background assumption that the service provider who harvests 
> the records is going to point an end user of an aggregation 
> site back to the "sharing" institution for actual access to 
> the content of the resource. So one question to ask in 
> thinking about the issue you raise might be: does the end 
> user really need to know whether it is a supplied or 
> transcribed title at the point of browsing through results on 
> the aggregator's site? Or can that information wait until 
> they get directed back to the site you maintain, where 
> presumably you would show them all the descriptive metadata 
> you have in your local record? Thinking about how OAI-based 
> metadata sharing systems work might help you comfortably 
> arrive at an answer to your question "does it really matter?"
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Bill
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metadata Object Description Schema List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Riley, Jenn
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 4:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MODS] Question: Source of title
> 
> 
> Hi Amy-
> 
> The division of information applying to the intellectual 
> content versus the version of a resource is something we're 
> going to be rethinking in the DLF Aquifer group that put 
> together the DLF MODS Guidelines for Cultural Heritage 
> Materials. We received many comments on how we presented this 
> issue in the draft we released for review. So don't put too 
> much weight on that specific recommendation right now.
> 
> I think the other thing to remember is that the DLF 
> guidelines are just one set of guidelines for MODS - they 
> aren't appropriate for all MODS records in all contexts. It's 
> absolutely valid and reasonable MODS to put this information 
> in a <note> element, and (without checking the mapping online 
> - bad Jenn!) I believe the MARC->MODS mapping on the MODS 
> site would do exactly that.
> 
> So the simple approach, using <note>, seems perfectly OK to 
> me. Then again, I tend not to be too much of a stickler about 
> things like this.
> :-)
> 
> Jenn
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Metadata Object Description Schema List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> > Behalf Of Amy Rudersdorf
> > Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:38 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [MODS] Question: Source of title
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > The following is a question from one of my colleagues. I'm 
> wondering 
> > if folks have comments/suggestions with regard to it. (This is 
> > basically the same question I brought up at the DLF Fall Forum 
> > Workshop in Charlottesville. Obviously, we're still struggling with 
> > it.)
> >
> > [start quote]
> >
> > Because of our current metadata format and cataloging 
> application, we 
> > do not,  in cataloging historical photographs, enclose the title in 
> > square brackets when it is devised by the cataloger or transcribed 
> > from a source other than the photograph.  We have therefore 
> > implemented a policy of always including a note about the source of 
> > the title, with the introductory wording, "Source of title: "
> >
> > With the understanding that DLF guidelines recommend using 
> the <note> 
> > element only for information about the intellectual content of the 
> > digital resource -- and not the original resource -- I 
> wonder if this 
> > source of title note should therefore be entered in the 
> <relatedItem> 
> > element, as follows:
> >
> > <relatedItem type="original"><note displayLabel="Source of 
> > title">Devised by cataloger.</note></relatedItem>
> >
> > Or since many of these photographs would never have an item level 
> > catalog record with a devised or transcribed title if a digital 
> > surrogate had not been created, should this source of title note be 
> > entered in the <note> element?
> >
> > Or does it really matter?
> >
> > [end quote]
> >
> > Or...should this information go in <extension>?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Amy
> > --
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> > Amy Rudersdorf
> > Digital Resources Librarian
> > Special Collections Research Center
> > North Carolina State University
> >
> > email: [log in to unmask]
> > phone: 919.513.1188
> > -----------------------------------
> >