Group Mailing list Archive

Can a collection be parts of digitsl objects? I am thinking of a collection of cited datasrts where the part of each dataset cited is defined by a query
See the RFA group om citation best. K
Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
---- Gary Berg-Cross wrote ----
I was also thinking along the lines of Jacob's suggestions, but hadn't gotten as far.
Can a collection be parts of digitsl objects? I am thinking of a collection of cited datasrts where the part of each dataset cited is defined by a query
See the RFA group om citation best. K

This looks like a promising definition but I see some things that may cause
confusion.
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.
Regards,
Jacob

Reagan
Thanks again. Some of these points are pithy enough to place is some
explanations of the definitions such as PID resolution.
It will be interesting to see if you and Jacob, for example, can converge
on wording for this operational view of label/identifier actions.
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​
​
*http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?GaryBergCross
*
Member, Ontolog Board of Trustees

Jacob,
We are essentially on the same page - maybe a different paragraph.
We agree here "saying something like 'collection == PID' (i.e., a
collection is a PID) is *weird *because the object and the identifier are *not
*the same kinds of things and don't possess the same properties and so are
fundamentally, formally not identical to one another. "
>My point is that identifiers really aren't any different than names,
labels, or what ever you call them.
They are, I would say, of the same KIND. But there are differences in