W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > February 2011

Re: FRBR and the Web

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:16:31 -0500
Message-Id: <347D27E8-83D4-42BF-8B4C-D7052285B181@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>


On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:33 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 20:31 -0500, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> FYA, I wrote up some of my thoughts on how FRBR relates to the web and
>> to webarch.
>> 
>> http://odontomachus.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/frbr-and-the-web/
> 
> That write-up feels like it is going down the path of attempting to
> discover the natural laws that govern what is and what is not an
> InformationResource.  Personally, I don't think that path is going to
> work very well, because to my mind an InformationResource is merely a
> *role* in the web architecture:

Please give a definition of *role*. 
Or explain how this strategy doesn't simply shift the explanatory burden from one poorly defined term to another. 

It's worth noting that JAR's article doesn't attempt to define IRs in general - instead showing how some IRs might be understood within that framework. 

Best, Alan

> *anything* can be considered an
> InformationResource if one chooses to give it that role, though some
> things are more appropriate for that role than others.   This is not
> exactly what AWWW currently says, but so far it's the only
> interpretation that makes sense to me, as otherwise we keep running into
> muddiness: there never seems to be a clear distinction of what is and
> what is not an InformationResource.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 14 February 2011 16:17:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 February 2011 16:17:12 GMT