On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 00:57, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> However, note that FRBR:Place is
> the same as LCSH 151 -- it is limited to place as subject. So it, too,
> cannot be used for place of publication. I still want somewhere a set of
> geographic names that I can plug in where I need them, and not to define
> different identities to places based on how they are used.
A place resolver could populate a coordination field which together
with a date lookup service should pinpoint exactly what place you're
talking about, as subject or otherwise. But I too find the notion of
Place limited to *anything* the be pretty bizarre. In the TM world
(you knew I had to say that, right?) we use Scope, so you could say
Place Ankara (Scope Modern times) or Place Ankara (Scope
pre-hellenistic) where the latter probably would (or should) yield the
name "Ankuwash". The Place is the same, but display name (conceptual
or real) is a distinct from the place itself.
In fact, something like a hashed identity for stuff like
http://stuff.mit.edu/geo?location=cambridge would be quite useful in
bridging coordinates with placenames, or even conceptual places like
"USSR". There's movement in the geo-location community for these
things, however, so perhaps we should follow along and see what they
come up with? (Although I suspect they only work with the scope of
modern times, or current)
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Fri May 08 2009 - 11:28:34 EDT