Relation Element Guidelines Draft

Thanks to feedback from my Personal Learning Network, I think I am now on to something for finalizing my indexing project “Relation” element guidelines. Everyone in the class now has their images, and all relationships between images that are from the same play sequence have been made known to us. “Play sequences” can contain 2 or 3 related images and there may even be one that we’ll index that consists of 4 related images. So here is what I am thinking for my guidelines:

  • Label: As the “left side element” name, I am thinking that the label for Relation should be “Same Play Sequence As“. I think for our particular context this is more appropriate and accurate than “Is Part Of” or any of the other suggested DC refinements.
  • Element Description: Relation refers to images that are related to each other because they are derived from the same play sequence.
  • Required? No. Many images stand alone.
  • Repeatable? Yes. Some images have more than one relation.
  • Guidelines: Indexers need only to input the URI of the related image(s) into the data entry portion of this element. If there is more than one related image, input subsequent URI(s) in a repeated field.

What do y’all think? Does anyone foresee any problems with this? Finally, I was thinking that we could make use of this Digital Object Linker plugin that will allow us to embed the related linked images into the metadata. OK, lemme know how crazy and short-sighted I am! Thanks!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Relation Element Guidelines Draft

  1. I like “same play sequence as.” Could you give a finalized example of how it would look, please? I guess I would like to see how the label would be finalized with the URI input.

    Like

  2. If you listed an image with “same play sequence as,” then would you label as “same play sequence as (insert title of image that shares same sequence)” or am I just a tad confused. It’s okay if I’m confused, you can tell me.

    Like

  3. beccabillings3: Sure, happy to. So as an example say I have 2 images that are related, one with URI “75_Alabama_vs_Clemson_131” and the other with URI “75_Alabama_vs_Clemson_132”. By the way, these URIs are based off of Madam Librarian’s latest guideline idea https://madamlibrariantechnology.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/keeping-track-of-the-versions/.

    In the metadata entry for the first image, by the time we get to the “Relation” element it would simply be labeled as and inputting would be as simple as:

    Same Play Sequence As: (include image link)75_Alabama_vs_Clemson_132

    Image 132’s Relation entry would in turn refer to the image we just input the metadata for in the above example. With images that have more than one relation (sequences of 3 or 4), we would use repeatable fields to list all of the related URIs for each related image. Sorry if this explanation is a little overcomplicated, but does this make sense?

    Like

  4. watte003: “Same Play Sequence As” would be the left side element name, in lieu of the vague “Relation”. Then for the right side content / data entry people would just input the related URI and image link. Let me know if anyone sees problems with this!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s