OK. I can see value in an "event" Type... in some sense it's analogous
to the MARC Community Information format. On the other hand, like
Erik, I can't quite imagine what purpose an "act of drinking" record would
serve, and would much prefer to see that handled through description and
contributor fields. But then, I'm still struggling with this whole 1:1
thing... not the idea, but the implementation of it. My kingdom (such as
it is) for an RDF-compliant input, maintenance, and search system with
seamless, intelligent management of relationship attributes!
--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 .............
On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Jul,Erik wrote:
> Paul:
>
> Thanks for taking a stab at it, as you said, an event worthy of metadata
> in its own right!
>
> :)
>
> Now, as for:
>
> > The tea pot is important because of an event (the act of drinking?)
> > with
> > which it is associated.
> >
> > Using an event concept, 'normal' records for the tea pot (simply
> > catalogued as an object) may be related to a 'normal' record for the
> > Prince.
> >
> Through a shared "act-of-drinking" record? Or an
> "act-of-drinking-from-a-silver-tea-pot" record? Or an
> "act-of-drinking-from-a-silver-tea-pot-by-Bonnie-Prince-Charlie" record?
>
>
> Assuming that the metadata record describes one and only one tea pot
> (the very one involved in the act of drinking in question), why would
> one not use the Description element in the metadata for the tea pot to
> record something like "Bonnie Prince Charlie drank from this tea pot"?
>
> 't would seem much simpler. What is the advantage of an "act of
> drinking" metadata record?
>
> --Erik
>
> Erik Jul
> [log in to unmask]
>
> P.S. Do people really drink from silver tea pots?
>
> :)
>
> ej
>
>
|