Re: Modelling library, catalogue, record, and item

Barbara Tillett wrote:

> We could also view this with our FRBR glasses on as the things
> (resources, objects, persons, corporate bodies, families) in our
> bibliographic universe (whether at a particular collection or library
> or just available from a creator, publisher, manufacturer, etc.) and
> the data describing those things (the records and catalogs of
> attributes and relationships).

I also looked at FRBR, but it does not help a lot. I can reuse
frbr:CorporateBody (but also foaf:Organization) and frbr:Concept (but 
also skos:Concept). Other FRBR classes and properties (frbr:Endeavour, 
frbr:Work, frbr:Item etc.) require some more analysis of our data.

> Can't we do better to describe these for the future rather than
> trying to replicate the catalog and record structures of the past?
> Those are a big part of our problem just now in trying to break away
> to a future that enables re-use and sharing/linking of data where
> there are relationships.

Sure we should not just put fields of catalog-records into RDF 
properties, but do some more sophisticated mapping. But I think the 
"catalog and record structure" is fine, unless you don't understand it 
as listing of holdings only. In my understanding there is no difference 
between a catalog and a bibliography - but this distinction between 
library science and documentation (now information science) has a 
loooong history.

Jakob

-- 
Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 07:47:24 UTC