On 26 March 2012 13:06, Michael Hopwood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dan, Giovanni,
>
> Thank you for this dialogue - I've been following this thread (or trying to!) 
> for some days now and wondering "where is the data model in all this?".
>
> At the point where "Quite different notions of IR are bouncing around..." 
> would it not make sense to focus on the fact that there are actually several 
> well-established, intricately worked-out and *open* standard models that 
> overlap at this domain, coming from different ends of the "commerciality" 
> spectrum, and themselves based on consensus, pre-existing (for example, 
> largely ISO) standards and solid database theory?
>
> I'm talking about CIDOC-CRM and Indecs, of course:
>
> www.cidoc-crm.org/
>
> http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf
>
> The fact that these 2 models, apparently quite different in domain, converge 
> on the event-based modelling approach, and both describe information 
> resources and other types of real world (it's fairly safe to say, all types) 
> resource in detail but without too much term bloat, would make them strong 
> contenders for a consensus definition - or at the very least, to point 
> towards the shape a consensus should take.

So I've been trying to drag FRBR into this conversation for some years
now, http://www.frbr.org/2005/07/05/dan-brickley-and-the-w3c

... but not because it (or Indecs, CRM etc., which also have their
charm) is good/better/best,

...rather to assert that different models, and levels of detail, make
sense in different contexts. Simple flat records have their place,
richer multi-entity structures have their place. If we can avoid the
Web architecture itself "picking a winner" amongst these different
ways of thinking about the results of content creation and publication
activities, so much the better.  The beauty of the Web architecture is
its minimalism and pluralism; the challenge here is to bring more
clarity to our discussion while preserving that. But I quite agree
that the terminologies from those models may help improve the quality
of debate here...

cheers,

Dan

Reply via email to