Johnston, Images DC Application Profile Working Group
Pete Johnston the British metadata expert (not Pete Johnson the American boogie-woogie piano player, though metadata goes well with a left hand like God laying out eight to bar) posted Images DC Application Profile Working Group on Hallowe’en.
I haven’t really worked much with metadata for images, and I’m not that familiar with the models in use in that domain. Polly and Mick circulated a draft model based on the VRA Core, which made a primary distinction between the types/classes Work and Image. This prompted a good deal of discussion, both from the viewpoint of whether that model really addressed all the use cases at hand (e.g. Does it handle the “born-digital” case? And if a digital image in a scientific publication is generated from data, what is the (VRA Core) Work?), and also as to how well it “fitted with”/mapped to the FRBR model (on which the ePrints/SWAP profile was based)- the VRA Core concept of “Work” is not the same as the FRBR concept of the same name. This in turn raised the broader question of whether these various DC application profiles should be framed within some shared, over-arching model.
On re-reading the introduction to FRBR this morning, I note that the section on "Scope" does state:
The study endeavours to be comprehensive in terms of the variety of materials that are covered. The data included in the study pertain to textual, music, cartographic, audio-visual, graphic and three-dimensional materials
so at least some classes of image were considered as in scope by the developers of FRBR. I’d be interested to receive any pointers to/comments on any experiences of applying the FRBR model to graphical resources. I’ll forward any comments received here to the project.