- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:42:50 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:40 +0100, Nathan wrote: > [ . . . ] > In this case, when it's describing something that is itself a > document/book, the whole thing falls apart (you'd have two authors, two > creation dates, etc), which I'm sure you'll agree is a bit of a monster. > > Hence, I have to disagree w/ Ed's "5. If it’s not clear, maybe the > vocabulary sucks." > > Thing is though, it is a reasonable proposal in a decent portion of use > cases, and combined with the "I won't describe the document" and "I'll > refer to the document by some other URI" voices, it does cover a fair > majority of the cases, but only in certain domains, and only by having > some special rule for metadata that lets you override the norm to say > "no it's not a doc, this over here is the doc" (like the CL approach). > At web scale though, it's far from an ideal solution, and really doesn't > help the worlds Librarians, or the Frankenstein case. > > Best, > > Nathan +1 -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 16:43:20 UTC