On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, R. Wendler wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Sigfrid Lundberg wrote:
>
> > Data are *about* things, they do not represent anything. Climatological
> > data can never be said to *be* the climate of a piece of time-space.
> > A theoretical global change model could possibly be claimed to
> > *represent* that particular aspect of reality.
> >
> > All document-like objects are *about*.
>
> I'll basically concede your point. But is there no difference
> between a "pot created in 16th century China"
That is the date at which the object got its current form, isn't.
And i suppose the pot was "published" in china.
> and a book about "pots created in 16th century China" in their
> relationship to the place "China" and era "16th century"?
This is according to me spatial as well as temporal coverage.
An unfortunately also subject: china. sigh!
>
> --Robin
Just en passant, as I've understood it, I think most of us regard the
museums metadata needs as being beyond the scope of the Dublin Core
initiative. (Don't ask a person at the natural history museum to
accept an attribute set containing the word Creator).
Since the catalogers of chinese pots won't use DC, there is no problem.
Yours,
Sigfrid
|