RE: [Digir-dev] Question on DiGIR Darwin Core and uniqueness of Catalog Numbers

[Jim C. <jr...@an...>]

>In the context of DiGIR, "resource" and "CollectionCode" are not 
>equivalent. This enables a resource to encompass many collections (where a 
>collection has one and only one CollectionCode).

and a catalogue number is unique within the context of a single 
catalogue/collection code...

>Many cases exist in the museum world where a single collection management 
>unit (i.e., department) manages several collections, which are 
>distinguished by different collection codes.  Catalog numbers are 
>duplicated across collections.

we are continually finding duplicates within collections but these are 
treated as errors and changed/corrected...

>It is tempting to say that a collection management unit corresponds to a 
>resource, but that's not right either.

but it would be nice if it did... :)

>A resource is intended to mean an information resource -- a group of 
>similar records that you can query and get back a subset of 
>records.  People and instititutions already have ways in which they group 
>their records into information resources.

which unfortunately do not always make conceptual sense, but that is what 
we have to deal with...

>Having multiple resources under a DiGIR provider creates a separation of 
>the distributed query technology from the way people group their records 
>into resources; there doesn't need to be a one-to-one correspondence 
>between provider and resource.

In that one provider can serve several resources, but not the other way around?

Is the one-to-one correspondence something we should be striving for or at 
least recommending?

>I also want to point out that a provider does not correspond to an 
>institution.  Many cases exist where an information resource is "provided" 
>(exposed via DiGIR) by a different organization than the one that 
>maintains it.

This is both a good thing (in terms of providing access to data that might 
not be able to get there by more direct means), and a not so good thing (in 
that the identity and credit of the data maintainers seems to get 
downplayed in the DIGIR provision process).   I think there is still some 
work needed in this area as the data passes through several sets of hands 
on its way from source to destination.

>Therefore Dave is correct in saying that the combination of institution 
>code, collection code, and catalog number is required to identify any record.

or at least we would all like him to be right... :)

jim


~ Jim Croft ~ jr...@an... ~ 02-62465500 ~ www.anbg.gov.au/jrc/ ~