Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts

18 Apr 2016

I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of
digital objects (each of which has an identifier, some link pointing to it,
I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't
gotten as far.
>Rather than define the collection as multiple sets (one of identifiers,
one of links, and one of metadata), why not just define it as a set of
digital objects (each of which has an identifier, some link pointing to it,
and some descriptive metadata). I might add some caveat like "at a
particular >point in time" so that there is enough flexibility to admit
that collections tend to change over time.
It seems essential to me to have as part of the definition that a
Collection is made up of parts and in out context these are digital object
parts. We then inherit the idea that as DOs they have ID and metadata etc.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​

*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees
Independent Consultant
Potomac, MD
240-426-0770