Re: AWWSW Telecon Tuesday 2011-08-30 ?

Jonathan Rees writes:

> I like FRBR, but my take is that the connection to web-things isn't
> strong. 
> .  ..
> If you think this discussion helps, rather than detracts, I could
> include it, but as the results are all negative I would think it's
> distracting. Maybe as an appendix?

Deserves a scholarly paper on its own.  You've gone beyond what I
meant.  I wasn't suggesting that FRBR subsumes ir:..., or _vice
versa_, rather that if people were finding the whole
generalises/specialises thing tricky to get their heads around, then
FRBR provides a useful detailed analysis of a _similar_ hierarchy or
continuum in a related part of the (information) universe.

> . . .
> A page (or wa:Representation) can specialize *many* generic resources,
> as Tim describes in his 1996 note. And in my theory, information
> entities are 1-1 with arbitrary sets of wa:Representations, so given
> any collection of wa:Representations you can form the IE that has
> those wa:Representations and no others.
>
> Ontologically, as Alan keeps reminding me, the idea is rather
> incoherent, so that's why the given semantics is axiomatic, not
> ontological. The only way to do something more intuitive and
> principled, in my opinion, would be to exclude most, if not all,
> actual situations one finds on the web. That would not be helpful.

Hmm.  Then ER diagrams are . . . misleading?  As most of us interpret
them ontologically. . .

>> ht
>>
>> * I.e. frbr:Work U frbr:Expression U frbr:Manifestation U frbr:Item
>>
>> Which raises an interesting question -- are e.g. the Mona Lisa, the
>> David, even the Eiffel Tower, information entities?  It's hard to see
>> how http://smarthistory.org/assets/images/images/leo_mona_face.jpg is
>> _not_ a specialisation of the Mona Lisa if you accept that
>> http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/graphics/poster_OrigMinard.gif is a
>> specialisation of Minard's graphic of Napolean's retreat from Moscow,
>> but that painting certainly has e.g. mass, which would disqualify it
>> on TimBL's definition as I understand it. . .  Hmm, so does
>> the original of Minard's graphic.  But not all drawings have paper
>> originals -- presumably you would definitely want to acknowledge that
>> there's an information entity somewhere in the picture (:-) in
>> connection with
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/ir/latest/generic.png . . .
>
> Interesting, but not sure the question needs to be answered.  I'd
> start with has mass => not information entity.

Meaning you endorse that statement?  So the Mona Lisa is not an InfEnt
but your diagram is?  How do you justify that?

ht
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 16:33:32 UTC