Group Mailing list Archive

Bridget et al,
It would seem that the Research Data Collections WG is the proper place for
this conversation and work advance and that you have already assembled some
of the major resources for this.
At some point you may have candidate concepts with definitions to provide
to DFT and others.
Is that OK with the WG to proceed on this?
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
***@***.***
​​
​

Hi,
I'm one of the researchers that Jeremy contacted yesterday regarding the
definition of the *gatheredInto(x,y)* predicate. I've been reading up on
this discussion and had a question about one of the collection definitions
being maintained by the RDA. Regarding the concept of PID (persistent
identifier) has there been any true consensus on what "persistent" and
"identifier" mean? For instance, would the name Keith be a PID (why?/why
not?).
Also regarding the "precise" collection definition from the collection

Ulrich –
Many thanks for this clear explanation. I also enjoy this type of discussion. I have a few points:
You said:
Alternatively we also can say, we omit the possibility of correctness proves and use artificial intelligence. In this case we can just use language and, if really wanted, ontologies.

Ulrich
In response to your reductive assumption in:
>To Gary: of course a collection is something different to an ordinary PID
also in my reductionist approach. It is a PID, that points to a very
special kind of DO. My assumption is, that this is sufficient for all
Ulrich
In response to your reductive assumption in:
>To Gary: of course a collection is something different to an ordinary PID
also in my reductionist approach. It is a PID, that points to a very
special kind of DO. My assumption is, that this is sufficient for all