Andy comments that : 
>while the "event-based model"
discussion is interesting, it is fundamentally not aligned with a FRBR
view of the world 

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). 

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
>