Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

Jeff, is anybody saying that bibo:Book is the same as frbr:Manifestation?
 That would be wrong, you're absolutely right about that.

But that's very, very different than saying:

<http://example.org/book/1> a bibo:Book, frbr:Manifestation.

It would be wrong to infer from this that books are manifestations, just
that this book is a manifestation.

-Ross.

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> Erik,
>
> My justification for saying this is a "logical conclusion" was the quote I
> gave from Barbara Tillett's "What is FRBR?" <
> http://www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF> I'll repeat it since it got
> dropped:
>
> "Before FRBR our cataloging rules tended to be very unclear about using the
> words “work,” “edition,” or “item.” Even in everyday language, we tend to
> say a “book” when *we may actually mean several things*." (emphasis added).
>
> Barbara believes the concept of "book" is ambiguous. I believe her. As far
> as I know, FRBR does not resolve this conflation by encouraging us to
> believe a "book" is a "manifestation".
>
> Keep in mind that I'm not the one you have to worry about conflating books
> and chocolate desserts here. I'm the guy who says different "types" should
> be identified separately. I can imagine someone creating a chocolate desert
> that conforms to a reasonable definition of book (messy as it may be). I
> have no problem with using owl:sameAs in this case but would still encourage
> them to identify the rdf:types separately:
>
> http://bakershop.com/bibo:Book/12345 owl:sameAs
> http://bakeryshop.com/bakeo:Chocolate_cake/67890
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Erik Hetzner
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 12:47 AM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical
> Composition
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Before I rant & rave, I want to say that I very much agree with your
> point in a later email:
>
> > Using umbel:isLike is just a suggestion and there are clearly
> > broader implications (including multiple rdf:types) as we've been
> > noting. These are excellent examples to use as the basis for this
> > kind of discussion and I hope everyone takes the opportunity to
> > share their opinions about the relative importance and limits of
> > identity and sameness.
>
> You & Andy have certainly caused me to think more carefully about the
> use of sameAs.
>
> At Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:36:09 -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> >
> > We don't need to call this a rule or best practice. Call it an
> > appeal to respect subtle differences.
> >
> > Here's Ross' example taken to its logical conclusion:
> >
> >   <http://purl.org/NET/book/isbn/0192838024#book> a
> >     <http://purl.org/NET/book/vocab#Book>,
> >     <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/Book>,
> >     <http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Work> ,
> >     <http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Expression> ,
> >     <http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Manifestation> ,
> >     <http://vocab.org/frbr/core#Item> .
>
> I am having trouble seeing why that would be the logical conclusion.
> The FRBR WEMI semantics are quite distinct from the semantics of the
> others. You may as well say that the logical conclusion is that a book
> is also a chocolate dessert.
>
> Here is the definition of a book/vocab#Book:
>
>  The abstract concept of a particular book, e.g. Stephen Hawking's A
>  Brief History of Time.
>
> Here is the definition of a bibo/Book:
>
>  A written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on
>  sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.
>
> As far as I am concerned, there is no semantic problem with saying
> that a URI has both those types. There is no conflation.
>
> You seem to think that my point is that one should assign as many
> types as one can think of to a resource. It is not. My point is,
> rather, that one must balance the trade-offs between identifying
> different resources (e.g. the difference between a person as a person
> and a person as a concept) and the understanding when two statements
> are about the same thing (e.g. Ross’ example that Bob Dylan
> (songwriter) knows the same people that Robert Zimmerman (person)
> knows).
>
> In other words:
>
> - “Assign distinct URIs to distinct resources.” [1]
> - “A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with the
>  same resource.” [2]
>
> I am sure we can all agree to that! The tricky part is figuring out
> when resources are distinct or the same. :)
>
> best, Erik
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
> 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those
> of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message
> and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
> the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
> please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
> e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>