Pete:
Agreed--I think I tried to say that, but perhaps didn't do so very
successfully. I think my point was that the perspective of someone
NOT the collection holder was necessarily a bit different, and though
conceptually the notion that a collection always had items, an
aggregator didn't necessarily have any idea what those items were or
what their format was.
Diane
>Diane,
>
>> From an aggregator's perspective, you can definitely have a
>> collection without items. If you're not the collection holder and you
>> are looking at an available collection (say, a website containing
>> educational materials), you may choose to describe that collection AS
>> a collection (or others may describe it for you), even if you have no
>> immediate way to know what those items are or to have metadata about
>> them. You may be able to get a service to provide a listing of the
>> items and some metadata for them, if the collection can't (or
>> won't), or you may not be able to do anything. It could certainly be
>> said that the collection exists even if all you know is that someone
>> created it, but from a practical perspective, there may be no extant
>> list of items or metadata for them. This is sort of a "tree falling
>> in the forest" notion, but helpful to consider.
>
>I know I said I'd shut up but.... ;-) I think it's important not to
>confuse the resources and their descriptions.
>
>In the scenario you describe here, you have a collection-level
>_description_ (metadata record) without item _descriptions_ (metadata
>records).
>
>That's different from saying you have a collection without items. The
>collection by _definition_ is an aggregation of items. In your scenario,
>you may have a metadata record only for the collection, or your
>application may be interested only in the collection-level description
>and not the item descriptions: that's fine but the items which make up
>the collection - in your example, the "educational materials" - still
>exist.
>
>(Though John's example of the collection continuing to exist for a
>period during which first it had items, then had no items, then had
>items again is quite an interesting one!)
>
>Pete
|