- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:03:23 -0700
- To: public-lld@w3.org
> > What I am getting at is that we may need a hierarchy that goes like > this (from most specific to most general): > > 1. RDA + FRBR -- range is as defined in RDA; domain is FRBR entity > 2. RDA alone -- range is as defined in RDA; no domain? > 3. Property with definition -- range and domain are open > I've re-done the diagram using Extent, which I think better illustrates the issue: http://kcoyle.net/domainsrangesExtent.pdf What is doesn't cover is a 4th possibility: 4. Property with definition + FRBR This might be useful in creating a FRBR-zed version of MARC (but maybe not) -- but in any case it is a logical extension of all of this. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 17:03:59 UTC