Type Guidelines: Further thoughts & refinement
As I have been considering my DC element further I have come upon some final considerations I will share here.
Initially I considered the use of Type to be rather elementary. After all, I reckoned, we are indexing images so quite obviously they would be classified as “Image” – no? While this is correct it is a shallow utilization of the DCMI vocabulary available for the Type element.
Even “Image” is able to be further specified into “StillImage” or “MovingImage”, but I have excluded either of these for our use. “StillImage” is defined as a static visual representation such as a drawing or map while “MovingImage” is an image that when shown in succession with other images to impart an impression of motion. Since our materials are images of football games they are limited to specification to the broad term “Image” which can be used for both physical and electronic representations (important since we are indexing electronic representations).
I also chose to suggest deployment of the term “Collection”. I feel this is an applicable and needed inclusion since our images are indeed part of a broader collection of photographs. If a user located a specific photograph they found useful and wanted to explore whether there were related photos including this term for the Type element would further ensure collocation of these items.
My other suggestion is for the inclusion of the term “Event”. I struggled to fully appreciate this term, but feel I have interpreted it correctly for our usage. Essentially this is a method to further increase usability by identifying these items based upon their being records of a time based event. This inclusion should enhance usability through increased recognition of these items as belonging to a particular event.
So on further review the Type element is quite a bit more robust than I considered it to be and I think what I have identified as useful for our application are justifiable uses. Comments and suggestions are welcomed as always!