> I would say, an event is not amenable to a bibliographic
> citation, and is not a bibliographic resource. An event is
> amenable to reference in language, just like emotions are.
> However, I don't think the definition of anything
> referenceable is a good approach to understanding
> bibliographic resources. It seems to me the latter has a
> narrower extension, and we want that to be the case for this
> property. Let's see if I can construct an example that is compelling.
>
> I believe the crux of this issue has to do with inscription.
> An event that is not recorded (inscripted?) violates the
> purpose of citation. We want to cite so we can refer to some
> text or some inscription for verification or further
> enlightenment. Yes?
>
> Consider Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring". It *was* an event,
> and *can be* an event again, but those particular events are
> not what one might cite in a paper. One could cite the score
> or the inscription of the dance moves Nijinsky had them do
> (Stuart Sutton knows what this form of inscription is
> called), and perhaps even reports on the event (in
> newspapers) can be *cited*, but that is only because one can
> refer to the text or inscription. All of those texts and
> inscriptions refer to some event, but that event is not cited.
>
> Does that make things clear? In my opinion bibliographic
> resource and bibliographic citation both have narrower
> intensions than your colleague calls for below.
Thanks, Joe (& Diane & Stuart). Yes, that confirms what I thought was
the case.
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
|