W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > November 2012

Re: F2F Decision: Multiple Resources - questionable example?

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:20:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUHknBCj1ckC51Nq9=N_icU9EwUHh5Pwv2Y-nSjiavnCqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Some other examples of Choices:

*  The choice between equivalent PDFs. eg a personal copy, a
dx.doi.orgpaywalled copy, a copy in arXiv, and a copy in an
institutional repository.

* The choice between images that depict the same thing, just with different
lighting conditions. Eg multi-spectral imaging of medieval manuscripts.

* Resources that have different metadata, as you say.  Everyone likes to be
credited where credit is due, so I don't think that his makes things  much
more complex. Also, this comes close to simply being a literal body, which
we don't allow for many reasons as per the FAQ.

* Choice between the same content in different formats: PDF, Word, Plain
text, RDF -- each of which is better for some particular client

Put in Library/Information Science terms, it works around the FRBR problem
by flattening everything to Items rather than requiring a reference to a
Work and then traversing the tree to find an appropriate Item.


Rob
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:20:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:20:34 GMT