- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:59:23 -0800
- To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>: > 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. As I said before, I don't see it this way. Even though RDF is much more flexible than the old record model, it has the concept of "subject" -- the subject of the statements, in my mind, defines the "about". Library data contains things like author identification as an object, but the author is a subject only in the name authority record (or foaf Person description set). I really don't see statements about authors, publishers, etc. in a library catalog record for a book. All of the data there should be with the book as the subject. In other words, what Jeff said. kc > > 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> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 23:00:06 UTC