RE: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

I think the concept of "primary entity" in the UNIMARC authorities
format is the clearest proof that authority records are about something
sensible. I think there are glimpses of this in MARC21 authorities. I
wouldn't say this proves that all records everywhere have a sensible
primary entity.

Jeff


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 5:59 PM
> To: Thomas Baker
> Cc: gordon@gordondunsire.com; Mark van Assem; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
> 
> Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:
> 
> 
> > I see the argument but still see a problem with the notion of
> > a record being "about" something.  Looking at a bibliographic
> > record through traditional bibliographic glasses, one does see
> > a set of data elements "about" a book.  Looking at that same
> > record through RDF glasses, however, one may see statements
> > "about" several different things -- the book, its author,
> > the publisher, etc.
> 
> As I said before, I don't see it this way. Even though RDF is much
> more flexible than the old record model, it has the concept of
> "subject" -- the subject of the statements, in my mind, defines the
> "about". Library data contains things like author identification as an
> object, but the author is a subject only in the name authority record
> (or foaf Person description set). I really don't see statements about
> authors, publishers, etc. in a library catalog record for a book. All
> of the data there should be with the book as the subject.
> 
> In other words, what Jeff said.
> 
> kc
> 
> >
> > The DCMI Abstract Model tried to express this point by
> > distinguishing between a Description (a set of statements
> > about just one resource -- e.g., the book OR the author OR
> > the publisher) and a Description Set -- a set of related
> > descriptions bundled together for practical purposes in a
> > single metadata "record".
> >
> > Yes, we need to use a terminology related as recognizably as
> > possible to things already familiar to the intended reader,
> > but we also need to point out to readers where perspectives
> > differ.  On this point, I suggest we find a way to say
> > that "records" may provide descriptive statements "about"
> > more than one something.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 23:54:25 UTC