- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:40:40 -0500
- To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>
- Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:42:18AM -0500, Marcia Zeng wrote: > I agree with what Tom summarized. It is based on the > usage of those vocabularies we put them into Group 1 and 2, > not on their encoding format/representation in our case of > LLD requirements doc. In other cases, some vocabularies > may belong to more than one group, depending on how and > where they are used. For example, for bibo we use it to > prepared bibliographical data like using DCterms, that is > Group 2. However if from library and information science > field point of view, it is a kind of KOS that models the > a subject domain, similar to the function of Dewey Decimal > Classification's certain schedule and classes, and can be > used as a Group 1 vocabulary. This is an important point. Whatever terms we decide on, we must emphasize that these are not either/or categories. FRBR is a good example of something that can be viewed from multiple angles and does not fit neatly into any one particular box. As Antoine puts it, they are not "disjoint". Tom -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 16:41:20 UTC