The issue needs more clarification. Clearly, there is a difference between the physical carrier, the database as a logical container and the contents of a database. A question arises about the identity of a database over time, and its definition in contrast to documents, if there is any difference.
In scope. The proposal is to treat a database as an information object. There is a need to model databases (October 2001).
Following the proposal from Paris to treat databases as Information Objects, the question is, if it has any characteristic properties that would justify an individual entity in the CRM. The only properties I can think of is:
"is composed of"
"documents".
I can hardly think of a database which does not document. Databases as art objects are still to be invented, or may not be regarded as databases. Therefore I propose to include databases in the scope note of documents. MD, Janary 2002.
Databases are regarded as a special case of E31 Document. This has to be included in the scope note. No changes to the model are required.
Monterey 22/2/2002.