Paul has graciously helped me get my dc-general subscription to work, so
I'll try this message again.
I have a few questions for David, Stu, et al. about the January D-Lib
article, "A Common Model to Support Interoperable Metadata".
The article proposes four newly defined types of relations "between
information resources":
Is
IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor
IsDefinitionOf/HasDefinition
IsOwnerOf/HasOwner
My questions:
1) Isn't Relation dyadic, or at the very least, not monadic?
Shouldn't a relationship "between information resources" require
something on either side of the relation type operand? Establishing the
Relation type "Is" to denote that the information resource is original
seems a bit twee.
2) IsMetadataAuthorOf/HasMetadataAuthor, IsOwnerOf/HasOwner -- Aren't
these agent roles rather than relationship types? If information
resources and agents are indistinguishable and what is proposed here
are appropriately new relation types, then we need a heck of lot
of other relations (e.g., IsAuthorOf, IsEditorOf, IsTranslatorOf,
Donated, WasKeyGripFor, SangInTheShower, etc.) What did you authors
intend by adding just these two (or four) relation types?
IsMetadataFor/HasMetadata seems to be an explicit (and explicitly desired)
type of relation between information resources not proposed here.
Sorry if I'm being dense... I await enlightenment.
--Robin
Robin Wendler ........................ work (617) 495-3724
Office for Information Systems ....... fax (617) 495-0491
Harvard University Library ........... [log in to unmask]
Cambridge, MA, USA 02138 .............
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|