Message from discussion
Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.182.16 with SMTP id e16mr65726ybf.29.1218728927597; Thu,
14 Aug 2008 08:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-IP: 132.174.124.40
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16)
Gecko/20080702 Firefox/2.0.0.16,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <15c4095c-12ba-4ef4-9865-db0d234d184c@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Aggregation/Resource Map relationship question
From: Jeff Young <jyoung.o...@gmail.com>
To: OAI-ORE <oai-ore@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm trying to put together a UML class diagram for ORE, and I'm
puzzled by these statements in section 3.1 of the "ORE-User Guide -
Primer":
http://www.openarchives.org/ore/0.9/primer.html#Aggregation
"An Aggregation does not have a representation..."
"the Aggregation URI A-1 must yield or lead to a Resource Map when
dereferenced."
Is this still the current thinking? If so, what's wrong with Resource
Maps being accepted as representations of the Aggregation?
I understand that a Resource Map is a description of an Aggregation
and not the Aggregation itself. This is true in the same sense that a
metadata record is not the same as a book. Nevertheless, it is fair to
say that a metadata record is a reasonable representation of a book.
If this was accepted, the questionable reference to an Aggregation
being a "non-information resource" could be dropped.
|
