Re: mapping table 2.0

On Feb 23, 2009, at 4:50 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:

> I'm not sure designing "yet another" ontology of abstraction levels  
> is a
> good idea. Felix already pointed out that FRBR, for example, was not
> entirely satisfactory to the BBC, and that they had to design their  
> own
> abstraction hierarchy.
>
> I would favor a minimalistic approach with a single and very general
> property. For that matter, it seems to me that dc:source [1] is a good
> candidate, and this is what I used in my toy implementation.
>
> More refined abstraction hierarchies could be defined by specializing
> this property and introducing new classes, like the ones in FRBR or in
> the BBC ontology, but I think committing to one or the other would  
> only
> limit the scope of our work.
>
   I agree whole-heartedly - the first version of this spec should  
take as minimalistic an approach as possible.

   I believe a single abstraction layer will be quite powerful, and  
additional complexity can be built on top of this in the next version  
of the spec *if* it proves to be necessary as people use the first  
version of the API.

Eric Carlson
Rich Media Systems - Apple, Inc.