Re: FRBR and the Web

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> On Mon, 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.
> 
> As I said in a comment I was only considering 'information resource'
> *as used by TimBL* specifically in the Generic Resources note.
> 
>>  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: *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.
> 
> I don't think there has ever been any doubt that documents and web
> pages are information resources in TimBL's view, and that people
> aren't. Maybe I'm wrong, but if so you'd be able to point at evidence
> since he has written on the subject quite a bit. Clearly TimBL thinks
> IRs form a class that is independent of web architecture (have nothing
> to do with their 'role' in webarch) - that's the whole point of his
> memo.

IR being the class of FRBR Manifestations, Expressions, and Works

dereferencable absolute-URIs refer to IRs

representations returned when you dereference an absolute-URI are FRBR Items

?

Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 18:00:12 UTC