For a third instance, the conflict between the Abstract and Description Elements in our repository have left me at something of an impasse. As with the image mentioned in my last post two posts, this image I am indexing leaves something to be desired in terms of identifiable players. Several are identifiable, but a number of the players at the core of the action are problematic. Given how many of my images have this problem thus far, I am inclined to decide that part of the Abstract Element guideline's wording leaves something to be desired. Fortunately for me, I co-administrate that guideline. As such, I can edit it to resolve the problem.
My first thought in this instance was to edit to the guideline, by adding to the notes section, the following:
Additionally, in some instances, because the guidelines for the Description,
Title, and Subject elements require key players involved in the action
of the image to be identified. In those instances, where a reasonable
supposition of an obscured number may be made for a key player (i.e.,
the ball-carrier or the blocker tackling them), then that supposed
number may be used to identify the player.
In such cases, the player's name should be entered in a manner
indicating the suppositional nature of the identification. As such, in
those cases, the name should be entered as follows:
Last, First (supp.)
That way, users may know the identification is not certain.
However, as we are dealing with metadata content, I realized that would only identify them as an entirely different entity than entering the name the standard way. As such I am removing the section beginning with "In such cases," and just indicating they should identify them as if it were certain.
No comments:
Post a Comment