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
|