Jon Phipps wrote:
>
> As usual the problem revolves around identity of 'real' things versus
> identity of conceptual surrogates. We're convinced that identifying
> value vocabularies as concepts is both more generalizable and more
> semantically accurate.
>
> In other words, is a list of materials a list of actual materials (could
> I cut myself on the rdvocab:glass) or a list of conceptual surrogates
> for those materials?
I agree with Jon. The idea of describing the "real world" might be
useful in some situations (say, in a warehouse application) but it's not
how catalogers and bibliographers think about or use their data. There
is neither a desire nor an attempt to have real world accuracy and they
aren't defining the real world things. Many if not most of the terms are
artifices and wouldn't be appropriate for real world things.
This means that someone wanting vocabularies for glass and rocks and
metal won't be able to use the rdvocab terms, but I think that's
actually a Good Thing.
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|