[Metadatalibrarians] VRACore4 used to describe buildings

[Lorrie McAllister]

Donald,

We also use VRA Core to describe buildings. Here is our Digital Library:
http://ksa.wmc.ohio-state.edu/

We are currently migrating to VRA Core 4 and don't forsee any major issues
with version 4.

Let me know if you have any questions about our site or implementation.

Thanks,
Lorrie

Lorrie A. McAllister, MLIS
Digital Resources Curator
Knowlton School of Architecture
The Ohio State University
275 W. Woodruff Ave.
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1138
phone: 614.247.6645



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:54:37 -0300
From: "Donald Moses" <dmoses at upei.ca>
Subject: [Metadatalibrarians] VRACore4 used to describe buildings
To: <metadatalibrarians at lists.monarchos.com>
Message-ID: <49EEDB4D.C80F.003E.0 at groupwise.upei.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello: 
I'm looking for advice. We would like to capture metadata about buildings
and are considering using VRACore4 as a schema. 

The type of information we will be capturing includes: 
- name of the building 
- description of the building 
- type of building 
- it dimensions 
- the materials used to construct it 
- the architects and builders 
- location 
- associated dates (when it was built or opened and when it was destroyed) 
- images associated with the building 

Am I on the right track with using VRACore4 or should I be looking at a
different metadata schema (QDC?) ? I've looked at the examples on the
http://www.vraweb.org/projects/vracore4/ website and have created a sample
xml file that I have attached. Advice or feedback would be appreciated. 

Thanks, 
Donald 





------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:13:34 -0400
From: Jon Stroop <jstroop at Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Metadatalibrarians] VRACore4 used to describe buildings
To: A listserv for Metadata Librarians
	<metadatalibrarians at lists.monarchos.com>
Message-ID: <49EF17FE.9050504 at princeton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Donald,
I don't think the attachment came through, but here are my 
thoughts--excuse my post if they're too obvious.

I've never done a project like this, but I think you're absolutely right 
to go with VRA.  My primary reason is the very clear distinction it 
makes between Materials, Techniques, and Work Type.  It seems like these 
map quite clearly to some of the fields you list.

Other reasons that come to mind:

    * If you want to keep the images associated with the descriptive
      record (as opposed, say, to via a METS) then, again, I think the
      distinction VRA allows you to make between the work and the
      derivative images should serve you well.
    * If you use the restricted schema, you get a nice list of date
      types which I imagine should cover your needs; same goes for location
    * The granularity of the measurements element is also quite nice,
      though encoding all the dimensions may be a bit of a big commitment.

I guess the only thing I wonder is if you have any added constraints 
coming from your content standards that don't fit well with VRA.  If 
not, I think VRA is the way to go.

-Jon

Jon Stroop
Metadata Analyst
C-17-D2 Firestone Library
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Email: jstroop at princeton.edu
Phone: (609)258-0059
Fax: (609)258-0441

http://diglib.princeton.edu
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead



*********************