Re: FRBR and the Web

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 UTC