I¹m an advocate for using ³text² in this case. I reserve ³still image² for
files that have pictorial / illustrative material. You could also use both
terms, which we have done in the past.

-- 

Elizabeth ³Lisa² McAulay
Librarian for Digital Collection Development
UCLA Digital Library Program



On 2/4/15, 1:31 PM, "Thomas Scheffler" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Am 04.02.15 um 21:55 schrieb Strong, Marcy:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am looking for some guidance related to the <typeOfResource> element.
>> I have a collection of digitized letters that I am working on and am
>> wavering between the use of ³text² vs. ³still image.² The letters are
>> clearly text and if I was actually describing the letters themselves,
>> then it would seem an easy decision. However, I am working with TIFF
>> files of pictures of the letters, for which ³still image² seems more
>> appropriate to the file type.
>>
>> My question is which version of the material I should have in mind when
>> using this field: the original versions or the digitized?
>
>Hi,
>
>my personal opinion is to use what ever fits to the rest of your
>metadata set. If you want to describe the original letter, e.g. you want
>to name the author of the letter, choose text. It does not depend on how
>the text is represented and which computer program is needed to display
>the text or if you need an extra OCR step to extract any characters.
>Text (physical object) is text (ASCII) is text (Word document) is text
>(TIFF image) is text...
>
>regards,
>
>Thomas
>-- 
>Thomas Scheffler
>Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
>Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek
>Bibliotheksplatz 2
>07743 Jena
>Phone: ++49 3641 940027
>FAX:   ++49 3641 940022