W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > December 2008

Re: An alternative approach to defining IR

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:35:20 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0812030835m60fbbe32k656e937a69b5d86d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: public-awwsw@w3.org

Some quick thoughts:
- FRBR Works are creative acts - they have an originator. Outputs of a
temperature measuring instrument aren't in scope, for example in FRBR,
but are probably considered in scope for IRs
- The distinction is made to understand the types of various
entities/artifacts. I don't understand the definition as being
"something that the distinction can be applied to". Do you mean that
an IR is anything that is either an item, manifestation,expression, or
work? Certain works do not have the ability to have their essential
characteristics conveyed over the wire ("Gray's anatomy, independent
of language, edition, revision", "The ballet version of dance of the
sugar plum fairy").


On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Here's a thought, which I don't have time to elaborate right now, but
> will come back to at some point:  define IR as anything for which the
> FRBR item/manifestation/expression/work distinction makes sense.
> ht
> - --
>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>                         Half-time member of W3C Team
>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFJNmINkjnJixAXWBoRAt4gAJ9Spsxh93/C4wcjqNDHDQhoFb3fowCfRJkh
> Px/cvUj/3OklH6lpcdqaZwA=
> =IVgQ
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 16:35:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:06 UTC