David Wrote:
> It is possible for events to be in coverage. If so the resource is
> "about" the event.
This must be so, it is crisp and clear from the definition of Coverage.
> But if the resource is "of" the event, the event is
> the DC.Type I think,
Again, yes. If we accept DC.Type=event, then this is the logical
consequence.
> David
I think that this is indeed _the_ crucial point.
What bibliographically minded people, like myself have finds difficult is
that this blurs the distinction between metadata and data. Somehow I
cannot think of DC -- or metadata in general -- as being used for
describing someting which isn't really data or information. Again this is
the DLO ghost.
Having seen the confusion here, and having tried to draw the demarcation
line between data and other kind of things (exhibitions, murders, teapots,
novels, WWW pages) I always find myself involved in subleties that are
counterproductive. Indeed, If we are not careful, we are capable of
actually wasting an entire workshop on this issue, not to mention getting
our mailboxes filled up.
Although those of my neurons that are conditioned to react as a
bibliographer find it wierd, I do see the virtues of the Type=event stuff.
Furthermore, I don't think that we will ever be capable to define the line
of demarcation between DLOs and other classes of objects that might not be
seen as data in the first place. Lets accept the Type=event idea, and see
what we can do with it!
Sigfrid
|