I don't see any problem at all with recurring events still
being type "event" - each occurrence is non-persistent, which
is a kind of class property inherited by all the instances.
I also reckon that (when we get that far!) "recurrent" could
be considered as a very reasonable potential qualifier in a
refined or more structured set of definitions for "event",
much in the way that we earlier flagged the likelihood of
having "moving" for "image".
John A. Kunze wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:31:23 +0800
> > From: Simon Cox <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: "event" DC.Type - draft description
> > ...
> > event
> > non-persistent, time-based occurence. Metadata for an event
> "Non-persistent" -- does that exclude regularly occurring event "globs"
> that we might still refer to in the singular, such as ...
Dr Simon Cox - Australian Geodynamics Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, PO Box 437, Nedlands, WA 6009 Australia
T: +61 8 9389 8421 F: +61 8 9389 1906 [log in to unmask]