since this discussion gets a bit less agile in the last days, it is
perhaps a good point in time to reflect the outcome of this discussion
in the definition I proposed.
I think we identified the mayor problems in this preliminary definition.
The suggestion I give to avoids these problems essentially goes along
the lines, Jakob made some Emails earlier (12.4.):
"... A better definition might be: A collection is a digital object
which consists of a set or a list and is named by a PID (which when
reified delivers the collection object). ..."
But it avoids the phrase "DO is named by PID", because this is still
under discussion, and uses "DO is identified by PID", which uses an
obvious property of PIDs and is sufficient for our needs. So at the end
we now have the following definition for the collection WG:
A collection is a digital object which is identified by a PID and
consists of a set or a list of PIDs/Ids and a set of additional
pointers/links and metadata together with each PID/Id.
which should be an excellent starting point for our work to be done in
the collection WG, where we need to find out its possibilities and
limitations. I already changed this in the RDA terms wiki.
Thanks a lot to all of you for all your engaged and enlightning
participation in this discussion.
Re: [rda-datafabric-ig][rda-collection-wg] Some thoughts on "Data Aggregations" terminology & concepts
You are here