- From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:03:57 -0700
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 7 Sep 2005, at 04:59, Karl Dubost wrote: > > As I was doing a bit of research this night about it, I found this > too. > Very good find! Thank you for sending this on. > * In the [SMART model][3], > a digitised object is a new manifestation of the work and > expression embodied in the original manifestation (like > a microform at the Library of Congress). > This works for me, I think. > * In the [Harvard University reference model][4], > a digital archival master is a new expression of > a graphic work, and it has a “surrogate for” relationship > to the original expression (labelled: “analog”). > I can understand why they'd do this, but I think I'd disagree. > Maybe we have to define what's a photograph indeed and see how does > it (or not) fit in FRBR model? > That's certainly one way of doing it! Another is to attempt to model some set of photographs straight from the FRBR (or a cast vocabulary of such), and see if it works and how the querying goes. It depends on how much faith one has in the correctness of the FRBR model! -R
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2005 18:05:06 UTC