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

Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTiki3Z5ZMPwgYuAFD0B9G6gGMhbs9oGkWA9OnXEt@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org> wrote:
> Karen,
>
> This might be a bit radical, but what would happen to your model if,
> rather than thinking of the FRBR entities as 'entities', you thought of
> them as simply classifications/groupings of the properties describing a
> single bibliographic resource -- an item? What would it look like if you
> simply described an item with all of the properties available to you in
> your data, and then organized those properties into FRBRish categories,
> without worrying about inheritance or entity relationships or class
> definition or anything else? Could you then declare those
> categorizations to be classes of 'things' that bear some definable
> relationship to each other and to the more formal FRBR entities?
>
> Just curious.

I've been tempted by this kind of design too.

I tend to see FRBR as a source of functional requirements, rather than
of a direct OO class model to use in RDF.

http://bpa.tumblr.com/post/10814190/faceted-classification-and-frbr
might be of interest here...

cheers,

Dan
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 20:28:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 September 2010 20:28:35 GMT