RE: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

Dan,

Yes - exactly. You don't have to, and probably couldn't, adopt Indecs or CIDOC-CRM for the Web Architecture.

However, there is significant convergence here, and it points to some simple underlying, shared concepts that have been proved enough times, and in enough wildly different domains, that you start to think there is something solid "inside" that would help to clarify and inform going forward.

And I stress, it's not about "buying" a particular model - in any case they are based on other, already accepted models - rather about using them to get to the core analyses that clear up the problems at hand.

Those standards are specifically in favour of *interoperability* which is surely the name of the game here...?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@danbri.org] 
Sent: 26 March 2012 13:30
To: Michael Hopwood
Cc: Giovanni Tummarello; public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

On 26 March 2012 13:06, Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
> Hi Dan, Giovanni,
>
> Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!) for some days now and wondering "where is the data model in all this?".
>
> At the point where "Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around..." would it not make sense to focus on the fact that there are actually several well-established, intricately worked-out and *open* standard models that overlap at this domain, coming from different ends of the "commerciality" spectrum, and themselves based on consensus, pre-existing (for example, largely ISO) standards and solid database theory?
>
> I'm talking about CIDOC-CRM and Indecs, of course:
>
> www.cidoc-crm.org/
>
> http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf

>
> The fact that these 2 models, apparently quite different in domain, converge on the event-based modelling approach, and both describe information resources and other types of real world (it's fairly safe to say, all types) resource in detail but without too much term bloat, would make them strong contenders for a consensus definition - or at the very least, to point towards the shape a consensus should take.

So I've been trying to drag FRBR into this conversation for some years now, http://www.frbr.org/2005/07/05/dan-brickley-and-the-w3c


... but not because it (or Indecs, CRM etc., which also have their
charm) is good/better/best,

...rather to assert that different models, and levels of detail, make sense in different contexts. Simple flat records have their place, richer multi-entity structures have their place. If we can avoid the Web architecture itself "picking a winner" amongst these different ways of thinking about the results of content creation and publication activities, so much the better.  The beauty of the Web architecture is its minimalism and pluralism; the challenge here is to bring more clarity to our discussion while preserving that. But I quite agree that the terminologies from those models may help improve the quality of debate here...

cheers,

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 15:44:21 UTC