Information Object: The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for
Living
By: Ms. Bayo Elizabeth Cary
Dublin Core Metatadata Record
Created By: Ms. Bayo Elizabeth Cary
Name Value
|
Creator
|
Howard
D. Cutler, M.D.
|
|
Contributor
|
His
Holiness the Dalai Lama
|
|
Coverage
|
The
20th Century
|
|
Date
|
1998
|
|
Format
|
5”x6”
hardback book
|
|
Title
|
The
Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living
|
|
Language
|
English
|
|
Publisher
|
Riverbead
Books
|
|
Subject
|
Self-help;
Psychology; Buddhism; Happiness; His Holiness the Dalai Lama
|
|
Type
|
Text
|
|
Description
|
Dr.
Howard Cutler weaves together interviews from His Holiness the Dalai Lama
with anecdotal stories from his psychiatry practice. Dr. Cutler attempts to locate the “art of
happiness,” how each individual can achieve happiness in his or her own
life. Dr. Cutler’s recommendations for
achieving happiness are based both on what H.H. the Dalai Lama recommends and
on what Dr. Cutler has seen work best with his psychiatric patients.
|
|
Rights
|
Copyright
|
|
Identifier
|
ISBN:
1573221112
|
Part I.
I included the element of creator. There was
clearly one individual who wrote the book.
This was the individual responsible for writing the book and, therefore,
the creator. I included the element of contributor. Although the book was written by Dr. Howard
C. Cutler, it is clear from the presentation of the material that it could not
have been written without His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s contribution. I almost wanted to include H.H. the Dalai
Lama as a creator as well, he contributed a great deal to the final product. However, H.H. the Dalai Lama is not listed as
one of the authors of the book.
I included the element of
coverage. The book is really very
modern. It is set in the 20th
century. The advice is all very
practical and in line with 20th century values and practices. I included the element of date. The book was published in 1998. It is an important piece of identifying
information. Someone may query the book
by date.
I included the element of format. I listed the above mentioned item as a 5”x6”
book. I checked the Dublin Core
resources and found that I could have included the book as “text,” as
well. However, I did not feel as though
“text” fully described the format. The
description as a 5”x6” book, was much more specific, according the definitions
of both: text (English: U.S. Definition) and book (English: World Definition),
provided by Oxford Dictionary online (Text, n. d.; Book, n. d.). I included the element of title. The book has a rather long and unique title. It would not make sense to include all the
other elements and then exclude the title unless the title was not
available. In this case the title was
readily available.
I included the element of
language. The data refers to a book that
was written in English. The use of a
controlled vocabulary is suggested for language in the Dublin Core (D.C.)
guidelines. However, D.C. entries vary
depending on the individual who enters the data. D.C. has a flexible format. Therefore, D.C. can accommodate the use of
the word “English” as the value of choice for the language element.
I included the element of publisher.
The publisher of this book was Riverbead Books. I Googled Riverbead but I was unable to
locate any information on Riverbead Books.
They must be a small independent publisher. I think that someone who knew did not how
uncommon Riverbead Books are, may need the category of publisher, in order to search
for the book by publisher. Therefore, it
is important to include the element of publisher.
I included the element of
subject. I tried to choose as many
categories as would apply for subject. I
used several keywords. Once again a
controlled vocabulary was recommended by the D.C. guidelines; however, I choose
to use the key words that I thought best expressed the subject matter of the
book. I included H.H. the Dalai Lama as
one of the key words because people who are interested in H.H. the Dalai Lama,
may wish to read this book simply because he contributed.
I included the element of type.
For the element of type I choose text.
I had a difficult time discerning between the type element and the
format element. I used a controlled
vocabulary for the type. I choose one
out of ten Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (D.C.M.I.) types (Dublin Core
Metadata Initiative, n. d.). Text seemed
best suited to describe the element of type.
I included the element of
description. I decided to write a very
brief summary of the book for the element of description. I could have also posted the table of
contents, or an abstract, but that would not have been original metadata. I also included the element of rights. The rights elements pertain to intellectual
property rights. The book is
copyrighted. Finally, I included that
element of identifier. For the
identifier I choose to include the International Standard Book Number (I.S.B.N.)
number (International Standard Book Number, n. d.). The I.S.B.N .number is commonly used as a
means of locating a book. Therefore,
including the I.S.B.N. number is quite helpful for many individuals searching
for a specific piece of data.
I included only the elements, which I deemed as relevant, in the evaluation
of the data selected. I choose to exclude
both: source and relation. The source of
the material was original. Therefore, I
did not need to include the element of source. The material was not related to any other material;
therefore, I did not need to include the element of relation either. However, it is important to include as many
elements as possible so that the data record is as complete as possible. A more complete data set of information,
regarding the characteristics which apply to the book, makes it easier for the
book to be located.
Part
II A.
The following information, which was
retrieved from Wikipedia online, is an enumerated list of the fundamental
information that the Dublin Core guidelines suggest to include in a D.C. data
set (Dublin Core, n. d):
Simple
Dublin Core
The Simple Dublin Core Metadata
Element Set (DCMES) consists of 15 metadata elements:
- Title
- Creator
- Subject
- Description
- Publisher
- Contributor
- Date
- Type
- Format
- Identifier
- Source
- Language
- Relation
- Coverage
- Rights (Dublin Core, n. d.)
The Library of
Congress (L.O.C.) M.A.R.C. online Library Database Record:
LC Control No.:
98020431 LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/98020431
000 01087cam a2200277 a 450
001 2615098 005 19990128121100.3
008 980501s1998 nyu 000 0 eng
035 __ |9 (DLC)
98020431
906 __ |a 7 |b cbu |c orignew |d 1 |e ocip |f 19 |g y-gencatlg
955 __ |a pc05 to
sa00 05-01-98; sh14 05-04-98; sh06 05-08-98 to RCCD/SA; yf06 05-22-98; yf08
05-26-98; CIP ver. pv08 10-26-98; yj04 07-06-99
010 __ |a 98020431
020 __ |a 1573221112
(alk. paper)
040 __ |a DLC |c DLC |d DLC
050 00 |a BQ7935.B774 |b A78 1998
082 00 |a 294.3/444 |2 21
100 0_ |a Bstan-ʾdzin-rgya-mtsho, |c Dalai Lama XIV, |d 1935-
245 14 |a The art
of happiness : |b a handbook for living / |c the Dalai Lama and Howard
C. Cutler.
260 __ |a New York
: |b Riverhead Books, |c 1998. 300 __ |a x, 322 p. ; |c 22 cm.
650 _0 |a Religious
life |x Buddhism.
650 _0 |a Happiness |x Religious aspects |x Buddhism.
650 _0 |a Buddhism |x Doctrines.
700 1_ |a Cutler,
Howard C. 920 __ |a ** LC HAS
REQ’D # OF SHELF COPIES**
CALL NUMBER: BQ7935.B774
A78 1998
Copy 2
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams
Building Reading Rooms
– Status: Not Charged
CALL NUMBER: BQ7935.B774
A78 1998 Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Building
Reading Rooms
-- Status: Not Charged
Part
II B.
There are many different metadata schemes
(Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). The term “metadata” came into use in the late
1960’s (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). The term originated with Jack E. Myers (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and
Metadata Schemes, 2005). The term
metadata means data that is about other data (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata
and Metadata Schemes, 2005). I will be
comparing M.A.R.C. metadata to Dublin Core (D.C.) metadata and discussing the
benefits and drawbacks of each method. I
will then look to the future of metadata with a brief discussion of
folksonomies. I will conclude with the
affirmation that there is no such record as the perfect record (Bade, 2009). I will begin the discussion with M.A.R.C. .
The Library of Congress (L.O.C.)
shares its bibliographic records with other libraries all over the world
through the exchange of M.A.R.C. (Machine Readable Cataloging) records (Smiraglia, 2005). M.A.R.C. was on the cutting edge when it was
first introduced in the 1960’s. M.A.R.C.
offered more flexibility with the encoding of metadata than its predecessors
(Jourdrey, 2009, p.134)..
A M.A.R.C. record is the result
of data which is collected according to the Anglo American Cataloging Rules:
Second Edition (A.A.C.R.2) standards then marked up (A.A.C.R. 2, n. d.; Smiraglia,
2005). M.A.R.C. consists of tags which
are added to fields and subfields (Smiraglia, 2005). The M.A.R.C. tags tell the computer what
information to display in the fields and subfields (Smiraglia, 2005). The
bibliographic records which have been coded in the M.A.R.C. format are then
saved and added to the libraries catalog collection (Jourdrey, 2009, p. 129).
Dublin Core (D.C.) is just another
one of many metadata schemes in operation today (Greenberg, Understanding
Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). D.C.
was created in 1994 by Stuart Weibel (Mederios, 1999). D.C. is maintained by the Dublin Metadata
Initiative (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005).
D.C. is often referred to as an
electronic card catalog (Baker, 2000). D.C.
was designed with a flexible interoperable data sharing scheme (Greenberg,
Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). D.C. has, what is referred to as, a “flat”
design which is relatively simple compared to other metadata schemes
(Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005).
D.C. maintains a simple design by relying of 15 core elements to
describe data (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). Therefore, the D.C. scheme is designed to
work with many other metadata schemes from many different fields of study (Greenberg,
Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes, 2005). D.C. is designed to work with both digital
and physical formats (Greenberg, Understanding Metadata and Metadata Schemes,
2005).
It is believed that interoperability between metadata languages such as
D.C. can be improved through the use of a controlled vocabulary (Tennis, 2003).
Controlled vocabularies take away much
of the flexibility which is known to accompany D.C. . However, controlled vocabularies do improve
the interoperability between various metadata languages.
D.C. elements vary depending on which data is
being evaluated and on who is evaluating the data (Coleman, 2005). No D.C. element is required (Baker, 2000). This means that some D.C. elements can be
excluded (Coleman, 2005). D.C. elements
may be repeated (Baker, 2000). Finally,
D.C. elements can be refined with the addition of qualifiers (Coleman, 2005).
M.A.R.C. standard language has 999 tags as compared to the 15 core D.C.
elements (Coleman, 2005). It is much
easier to be much more specific with M.A.R.C. through the application of the
999 tags (Coleman, 2005). The plethora
of tags also makes M.A.R.C. a much more complicated metadata scheme. D.C. is much simpler, with only 15 elements;
it is much easier to apply.
When comparing the D.C. record that I created, to the L.O.C. M.A.R.C. record that I located online, I
found that while my D.C. record was relatively easy to complete, it did not contain
as much essential information as the L.O.C. M.A.R.C. metadata record (Cutler/L.O.C.,
1998). I too wondered about the
interoperability of a record which was filled out so freely. I felt empowered by the ability to construct
the metadata record; however, I prefer a more standardized form like M.A.R.C. . I do not support the idea of replacing M.A.R.C.
with D.C. .
The idea of replacing M.A.R.C.
with D.C. is a widely debated topic (Mederios, 1999). D.C. is touted as being more affordable, and
therefore a viable option to replace M.A.R.C. (Mederios, 1999). However, librarians are quite comfortable
working with M.A.R.C. (Mederios, 1999).
M.A.R.C. has transformed and adapted to the internet environment through
the introduction of new tags (Mederios, 1999).
Due to its ability to metamorphose and meet modern metadata challenges
it is argued by some that M.A.R.C. can hold its ground and, therefore, does not
need to be replaced by D.C. (Mederios, 1999).
However, the possibilities for D.C. are great.
Internet documents tend to contain D.C. metadata (Mederios, 1999). D.C. metadata, then, can be utilized by
search engines during their search and retrieval process (Mederios, 1999). The utilization of D.C. by search engines
could fundamentally change the search process.
If D.C. were utilized by search engines information that was more
specific to a particular search would be located (Mederios, 1999).
The question then is: to what extent should D.C. be incorporated into
the library records? The inclusion of D.C.
in library records will greatly improve the libraries search and retrieval
process (Mederios, 1999). M.A.R.C. and D.C.
will exist and work side by side. It is
predicted by many that M.A.R.C. records will continue to be used by the library
because they are both familiar and have worked well in the past(Mederios, 1999).
What does the future hold for
metadata and information organization? Metadata
created by humans is ubiquitous on the web (Greenberg, Metadata Generation:
Process, People, and Tools, 2003).
Individuals attach tags which specify key words and descriptions
(Greenberg, Metadata Generation: Process, People, and Tools, 2003). This
process has a name--folksonomy.
Folksonomy is one of the latest and one of the biggest ideas in the
organization of information. Folksonomy
is the act of working with others to tag data with key words and descriptions (Marliese
Thomas, 2009). The work of tagging is
done by ordinary individuals as opposed to experts (Marliese Thomas, 2009). The words used to tag the data are not from a
controlled vocabulary (Marliese Thomas, 2009).
Folksonomy was introduced to the general public in 2003 through the
website delicious (Marliese Thomas, 2009).
Then in 2004 flickr utilized tagging as a way for organizing photos (Wichowski,
2009). Folksonomies may be the future of
metadata. They reach beyond the rigid
rules of M.A.R.C. and past what was once seen as the flexible scheme of D.C. .
There are no controlled vocabularies to refer to. There is no expert to guide the
classification. It is all up to the
ordinary individual.
In conclusion there is no perfect record (Bade, 2009). Catalogers do their best to note information
in the most precise and accurate way possible (Bade, 2009). There is a sincere effort on the part of
catalogers to save data in a way that is easily retrievable and understandable (Bade,
2009). The metadata evolution will
continue. New means of organizing and
storing metadata will continue to emerge just as the old ways will evolve or
become obsolete.
References: According to Purdue Owl Online (A.P.A.
Format)
A.A.C.R.2 (Anglo American Cataloging
Rules: Second Edition). (n. d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACR2
Bade, D. (2009) The Perfect Bibliographic
Record: Platonic Ideal, Rhetorical Strategy or Nonsense? Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 46(1). Retrieved from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/67272_751309558_903799310.pdf
Baker, T. (2000). A Grammar of Dublin
Core. D-Lib Magazine, 6(10).
Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html
Book. (n. d.). Oxford Dictionary online: World English. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0092360#m_en_gb0092360
Coleman, A. (2005). From Cataloging to
Metadata: Dublin Core Records for the Library Catalog. The Haworth Press, Inc. , 40 (3/4).Retrieved from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/984998_751309558_903618946.pdf
Cutler, H. D./L.O.C. . (1998). M.A.R.C.
Record. The Art of Happiness: a guide to
living. Retrieved from
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v4=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20100805121201&SAB1=1573221112&BOOL1=all%20of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&GRP1=AND%20with%20next%20set&SAB2=&BOOL2=all%20of%20these&FLD2=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&GRP2=AND%20with%20next%20set&SAB3=&BOOL3=all%20of%20these&FLD3=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&CNT=100&PID=fpZ8-jzwObDeXChPqtx1ZynRv&SID=1M.A.R.C.
standards (Machine Readable Cataloging). (n. d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia
online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARC_standards
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
(D.C.M.I.). (n. d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia online: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/
Dublin Core. (n. d.). Retrieved from
Wikipedia online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Core
Greenberg, J. (2003). Metadata Generation:
Processes, People, and Tools. ASIST
Digital Library, 29(2). Retrieved from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/109863400/HTMLSTART
Greenberg, J. (2005). Understanding
Metadata and Metadata Schemes. The
Haworth Press, Inc., 40(3/4).
Retrieved from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/300078_751309558_903618940.pdf
International Standard Book Number
(I.S.D.N.). (n. d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN
Jourdrey, A. G. (2009). The Organization of Information: third
edition. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
M.A.R.C. standards (Machine Readable
Cataloging). (n. d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARC_standards
Marliese Thomas, D. M. (2009). To Tag or
Not to Tag? Library Hi Tech , 27(3). Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2380270308.html
Mederios, N. (1999). Making Room for MARC
in a Dublin Core World. Online, 23(6).
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=11&sid=789c21f8-32eb-4d63-ab94-dddbc0ce8c65%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=2440491
Purdue University, the Writing Lab, and
the Owl at Purdue. (n. d.). Purdue Owl online Reference and Citation Resources.
Purdue Owl online (Reference Resources and Citations). Retrieved from
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/10/
Smiraglia, R. P. (2005). Introducing
Metadata. The Haworth Press, Inc.,
40(3/4). Retrieved from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/792095_751309558_903618939.pdf
Tennis, J. T. (2003). Data Collection for
Controlled Vocabulary Interoperability--Dublin Core Audience Element. American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 29(2). Retrieved http://www.asis.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu?Bulletin/Dec-02/tennis.html
Text. (n. d.). Oxford Dictionary online: U.S. English. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1298051#m_en_us1298051
Wichowski, A. (2009). Survival of the
fittest tag: Folksonomies, findability, and the evolution of information
organization. First Monday, 14(5). Retrieved
from http://fristmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2447/2175
No comments:
Post a Comment