Norman:
Norman Paskin wrote:
> Andy comments that :
>
>> while the "event-based model"
>>
> discussion is interesting, it is fundamentally not aligned with a FRBR
> view of the world
>
I agree with Andy's main point here. We have a lot to do to deal with
the goals for this group, and can't really afford to get into
interesting but fundamentally distracting conversations that are not
relevant to our goals.
> I disagree. I think the point of the CIDOC/FRBR harmonisation work, which I
> cited earlier, was to show that in fact FRBR *IS* aligned with an
> events-based model, and making this explicit as it was hitherto implicit
> (perhaps not originally in the specification, but a logical condequence of
> it). I don't see a logical division (or problem; or two meanings of
> "event"), merely a difference in how explicit one is/needs to be. "The
> French Revolution" might be a useful item for cataloguing (without
> necessarily deploying full events-based modelling), and equally a useful
> event in modelling / relating to other resources (using such tools as
> CIDOC/FRBRoo).
>
>
I don't disagree with this, but it's much more relevant (in my opinion)
to the evolution and representation of FRBR, which is not the
responsibility of this group. Given that there's lots of good
conversation going on in the FRBR world on these issues, I'd suggest
that our best interest is served by keeping in touch with that activity
(and participating as individuals where we feel moved), but not
necessarily feeling obligated to be in the forefront of this activity in
the context of this effort.
Diane
> N
>
>
> Dr. Norman Paskin
> 5, Linkside Avenue
> Oxford
> OX2 8HY
> UK
>
> Tel: (+44) 1865 559070
> Mobile: (+44) 7710 327569
> skype: npaskin
> www.tertius.ltd.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: 02 March 2008 09:30
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: events vs. events (was RE: [DC-RDA] expressions, works, and
> dates)
>
>
> I suspect that the discussion about 'events' has split into two separate
> paths because of two meanings of event.
>
> On the one hand we have people talking about "event-based models" (such
> as Indecs) - which I would charaterise as "an approach to modeling the
> world for the purpose of cataloguing/descrption centred around
> particular events in the live-cycle of the resource". On the other hand
> we have people who simply want to be able to catalogue events using
> DC-RDA, i.e. they want to be able to catalogue a 'performance of a work'
> (as opposed to the concrete artefacts that might derive from such a
> performance).
>
> Clearly, there is some relationship between these two discussions, but I
> suggest that we should keep them separate for now.
>
> I'd like to go further and suggest that while the "event-based model"
> discussion is interesting, it is fundamentally not aligned with a FRBR
> view of the world and hence falls outside the scope of this paraticular
> mailing list. People who want to see FRBR and RDA adopt an event-based
> model need to have that discussion somewhere else - I don't know where.
>
> The "cataloguing events" discussion is relevant to this list and the
> issue basically comes down to whether it is appropriate or not to treat
> an "event" as an RDA resource - which in part comes down to whether an
> "event" can be treated as being bibliographic in nature (as per the FRBR
> type 1 entities).
>
> I'm purposely adopting slightly extreme positions here to test the
> water. Please tell me what I've got right or wrong above!?
>
> Final note: the DC Abstract Model is quite capable of handling an
> event-based application profile (i.e. there is no inherent problem with
> DC being used to capture resource descripotions based on an event-based
> model of the world) since it is fundamentally based on the description
> of [DCMI] resources, and an event, in both senses of the word above, is
> a [DCMI] resource. However, this is not an approach that has been used
> elsewhere in the DCMI. It would therefore be a novel approach for DCMI
> and likely to not align well with the approasches taken in other DCMI
> application profiles. Again, I think this suggests that it is not a
> helpful path for this group to go down.
>
> Andy
> --
> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
> [log in to unmask]
> +44 (0)1225 474319
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access
>> (RDA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
>> Sent: 02 March 2008 08:57
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [DC-RDA] expressions, works, and dates
>>
>>
>>> If the RDA work is going to be built upon DCAM, is the
>>>
>> question really
>>
>>> whether an event can be a *described* resource?
>>>
>> That is a valid question, and the answer is "yes, an event
>> can be a described resource" in terms of the DCAM.
>>
>>
>>> It's likely to be present as a related resource of some
>>>
>> sort, even if
>>
>>> it's never the focal point of a bibliographic description.
>>>
>> Yes, agreed.
>>
>>
>>> The descriptions of events that show up in some RDA
>>>
>> description sets
>>
>>> should be designed in such a way that folks who need metadata about
>>> non-fixed events can build an application profile of their
>>>
>> own drawing
>>
>>> upon RDA properties when appropriate, right?
>>>
>> Yes, absolutely. I think this is what Mikael was suggesting.
>>
>> Andy
>> --
>> Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
>> http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
>> http://efoundations.typepad.com/
>> [log in to unmask]
>> +44 (0)1225 474319
>>
>>
>
>
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Diane I. Hillmann
Research Librarian
Cornell University Library
Email: [log in to unmask]
Voice: (607) 387-9207
Fax: (607) 793-9505
Skype: dihillmann
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
|