Group Mailing list Archive

I suppose my counter question is: Is a part of a digital object a digital
object itself?
If yes, then yes. If not...what would the use case be for collecting it?
Also of possible interest, the W3C's Web Annotation working group has a
method for turning any segment of web resource into a distinct web
resource. That approach to defining identity for segments of objects might
be applicable here.
Regards,
Jacob
_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant

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

Dear all,
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

Hi Gary,
Hi Gary,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
>
> They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in
> practice.
>
>
Yes, this is my understanding. Or more specifically an identifier is a kind
of name (which itself is a kind of label).
Hi Gary,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Gary <***@***.***> wrote:
>
> They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in
> practice.
>
>