- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:41:19 -0500
- To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
- Cc: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 02:33:08PM +0000, Gordon Dunsire wrote: > A definition of "record" from the MADS/RDF Vocabulary Description document > (http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/): > > "Used throughout the current document to describe the compilation of facts about > something or, especially in the case of the present document and topic, the > collection of triple statements about an authoritative or variant term (such as > a subject or name heading)." > > Which generalises to: "The compilation of facts about something, or the > collection of triple statements about something." Put this way, it sounds to me like what the DCMI Abstract Model calls a Description (see below). > See also the Background section of the BibData use case cluster > (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_BibData): "... bibliographic > record, a set of data elements describing the content and characteristics of an > information object manufactured for human consumption.". Which generalises to "A > set of data elements describing something." - but are we developing a definition > of "record" within the bibliographic context, or just generally? I see the argument but still see a problem with the notion of a record being "about" something. Looking at a bibliographic record through traditional bibliographic glasses, one does see a set of data elements "about" a book. Looking at that same record through RDF glasses, however, one may see statements "about" several different things -- the book, its author, the publisher, etc. The DCMI Abstract Model tried to express this point by distinguishing between a Description (a set of statements about just one resource -- e.g., the book OR the author OR the publisher) and a Description Set -- a set of related descriptions bundled together for practical purposes in a single metadata "record". Yes, we need to use a terminology related as recognizably as possible to things already familiar to the intended reader, but we also need to point out to readers where perspectives differ. On this point, I suggest we find a way to say that "records" may provide descriptive statements "about" more than one something. Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 19:41:57 UTC