Beacom, Matthew wrote:
>
> Although using an implied and ad hoc instrumental definition of "document" or "resource" is sensible, practical and sound, there is still much value in explicit and formal thinking and talking about definitions.
>
By all means.
DC *does* say, BTW, what a "resource" is supposed to be:
"Anything that might be identified. Familiar examples include an
electronic document, an image, a service (for example, "today's weather
report for Los Angeles"), and a collection of other resources. Not all
resources are network "retrievable"; for example, human beings,
corporations, concepts and bound books in a library can also be
considered resources."
in:
http://dublincore.org/documents/abstract-model/#sect-7
This only leaves us to ponder what "to identify" might mean...
But seriously, what is a "work"? An "expression"? Can we think of them
(they are abstracta) as documents? The "resource", taking the DC
definition, seems to fit better.
Does RDA make an attempt? It's based on FRBR, and FRBR talks of
"entities":
"Group 1 entities are Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item (WEMI).
They represent the products of intellectual or artistic endeavour."
(from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm)
B.Eversberg
Received on Tue Jan 26 2010 - 10:14:53 EST