Re: Annotating IR of any relevance? (httpRange-14)

On 26 March 2012 13:06, Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
> Hi Dan, Giovanni,
>
> Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!) for some days now and wondering "where is the data model in all this?".
>
> At the point where "Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around..." would it not make sense to focus on the fact that there are actually several well-established, intricately worked-out and *open* standard models that overlap at this domain, coming from different ends of the "commerciality" spectrum, and themselves based on consensus, pre-existing (for example, largely ISO) standards and solid database theory?
>
> I'm talking about CIDOC-CRM and Indecs, of course:
>
> www.cidoc-crm.org/
>
> http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf
>
> The fact that these 2 models, apparently quite different in domain, converge on the event-based modelling approach, and both describe information resources and other types of real world (it's fairly safe to say, all types) resource in detail but without too much term bloat, would make them strong contenders for a consensus definition - or at the very least, to point towards the shape a consensus should take.

So I've been trying to drag FRBR into this conversation for some years
now, http://www.frbr.org/2005/07/05/dan-brickley-and-the-w3c

... but not because it (or Indecs, CRM etc., which also have their
charm) is good/better/best,

...rather to assert that different models, and levels of detail, make
sense in different contexts. Simple flat records have their place,
richer multi-entity structures have their place. If we can avoid the
Web architecture itself "picking a winner" amongst these different
ways of thinking about the results of content creation and publication
activities, so much the better.  The beauty of the Web architecture is
its minimalism and pluralism; the challenge here is to bring more
clarity to our discussion while preserving that. But I quite agree
that the terminologies from those models may help improve the quality
of debate here...

cheers,

Dan

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 12:30:50 UTC