[UPS] Problems/Comments with Santa Fe Metadata Set

[Thomas Krichel]

  Carl Lagoze writes

> Our view throughout the design of Dienst (and digital object repositories in
> general) is that a repository is not in the business of human presentation.

  This view is shared by the Guildford protocol that is to RePEc what
  Dienst is to NCSTRL.

> Thus, there may be many user interfaces and many "display Ids" for a
> particular digital object. Furthermore, a repository does not have
> any record of what these display Ids are

  idem for RePEc.

> Furthermore it imprints it as part of the metadata for the digital
> object, which philosophically is a rather persistent entity - yes,
> objects should be persistent but the user interfaces that present
> them should be malleable.

  I share that view. But this is one particular view and other
  people have other views.

  I can not resist the temptation  to repeat what I already said 
  at the meeting: Building metadata involves a view on the data. I
  think that we ought to prioritize creating the conditions under
  which different views are encouraged. I am pleased that the new
  name for the initiative emphasizes that priority. 

> I don't have a real good answer here, 

  Neither have I, but let me offer some ideas from our perspective.
  From the point of view of RePEc, a service that would serve Santa
  Fe metadata could not be part of RePEc. It would be a user
  service created from the RePEc data. My recommendation to that
  user service would be to build a set of static pages that
  contain the complete ReDIF record for the entity to be displayed,
  and deliver the URL of these pages as the display-id. This service
  would contain valid (syntactically as well as relationally)
  ReDIF records only. 


  Thomas Krichel                       http://gretel.econ.surrey.ac.uk
                                   RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
  offline 1999-11-18 to 1999-11-21