W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > October 2010

Re: frad:Person and foaf:Person

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikdNqsHf+vd3STgY6=sTEAUmcdzsQkGkvZFBvt2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM, gordon@gordondunsire.com
<gordon@gordondunsire.com> wrote:
> All:
>
> fwiw, FRBRer defines Corporate Body as "An organization or group of
> individuals and/or organizations acting as a unit." And FRAD defines
> Corporate Body as "An organization or group of persons and/or organizations
> identified by a particular name acting as a unit." The difference is that
> FRAD needs a name (person and individual are synonymous in FRBRer and FRAD).
> The FRBR Review Group discussed this at IFLA 2010, and concluded that the
> difference was significant. So Corporate Body is a separate class in each of
> the FRBRer and FRAD namespaces, and the FRAD class is a sub-class of the
> FRBRer class. It is likely that the differences will be resolved in the
> consolidated FR model.
>

Is the distinction one concerning the 'things in the world', or more
about their actual descriptions in some particular record?

The 'identified by a particular name' bit sounds like a constraint on
a description. Although you might imagine some peculiar group who
managed to act as a unit without having any consistent collective name
(and therefore no name that could be used in a record), that's perhaps
an unintended corner case. The emphasis here seems not to be in that
direction - but rather on names that exist but are not mentioned in
the right description. Is that a fair reading?

If so I'd call this a single class, and express the rule about names
as [something like] an application profile.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Sunday, 31 October 2010 19:58:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 31 October 2010 19:58:10 GMT