In response to:
Svenonius, Elaine. (2000) “The intellectual foundation of information organization.” Cambridge: MIT Press. Chapter 4.
Gilliland, Anne J. (2008 ) “Setting the stage.” In Baca, Murtha (ed.) Introduction to metadata, online edition, version 3.0. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
As with the difference between a work and a document, the differences between a description and a surrogate seems to be a bit fuzzy. In my understanding, a surrogate is used to access the work and perhaps can be roughly equated to the bibliographic record. The surrogate would include information from the work (like the title, author, and publisher), metadata about the work (subject headings, keywords), and where to find the work (call numbers). Gilliland seems to be saying that in the case of digitized information, the surrogate might even be a pdf copy of an article, chapter, or entire book. A (bibliographic) description is written about the information and its manifestation. From the wikipedia entry for an ISBD, this would include things like which volume (of a multi-volume work) the information is located in, the number of pages to a book, its dimentions, and so on.
In relation to the previous readings, it seems likely to me that a number of people choose to read the FRBR article since it obviously had a fairly brief page count. The indecs article is nearly fifty pages and there wasn’t any limitation specified on how much of the article was required. Having read about half of it, I would say that it was really only necessary to read the first two sections (eleven pages) for our purposes. In fact, reading more than that without training in how to use it seems to drop my comprehension of the model. I think it is unfortunate that so few looked into this article, because I found it compelling. Relating it to the Gilliland reading, she cites “Practical Principles of Metadata Creation and Maintenance” in discussing the difficulty of creating universal/interoperable metadata systems (page 5). Different communities have different objectives, which is perhaps why I had difficulty with the indecs model, which seems to aspire to reconciling different communities metadata into a fully automated system. I’m not sure, but it didn’t read like it was quite there yet.
It also hits on my favorite organization topics: user-generated metadata versus professionally created metadata. While I realize that it is the height of hip (in information science terms), but I would still like to find a way to turn the topic into a master’s paper.
And just for fun the Gilliland article as text art…