Group Mailing list Archive

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

Gary,
Of course, and it is our intent. We have already begun, as Ulrich and
Thomas mentioned, by working through the definitions directly within the
RDA instance of the DFT tool so that our work is visible to all as we go.
Best
Bridget

Jeremy et al
Yes, your
​
DCMI collection reference is apt and indeed, as I recall, this effort and
projects like Europena provided some idea of aggregation as the basis for
collection. For example from the DBLIB article (Representing Cultural
Collections in Digital Aggregation and Exchange Environments
​)​
we had:
"The DCMI Metadata Terms
defines *dcterms:hasPart* as "A related resource that is included either
physically or logically in the described resource", and*dcterms:isPartOf* as