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

Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:18:50 -0700
Message-ID: <20100913141850.qh689xs3k0co4ksk@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org>
Jon Phipps:

> 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


> Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

> 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.

Me, three, I have thought about it this way, but I can't figure out  
how to make it work on a real bibliographic system. Essentially, this  
is what we have today with MARC21 records (and ISBD records, I  
believe). All of the data describing either an item or a manifestation  
is created as a single set. Then say that you want to present a view  
to your users that shows them works, and all of the expressions of  
those works. (There are real reasons for presenting a frbr:work view,  
BTW, so this is more than hypothetical.) This MAY be possible if you  
have in each bibliographic description (this is from the 2008 FRBR  
doc, not the registered FRBRer) the same:

title of the work
form of work
date of the work
other distinguishing characteristic
intended termination
intended audience
context for the work
medium of performance (musical work)
numeric designation (musical work)
key (musical work)
coordinates (cartographic work)
equinox (cartographic work)

because this is what identifies a frbr:work. This is how we will  
discover "workness" in bibliographic data that doesn't have FRBR  
entities defined. Even if most of these are expressed with URIs, I  
have concerns about the efficiency of making this decision for each  
search and display.

But the bigger issue, to me, is how you will use a loosely organized  
set of properties to express:

    somethingA is an adaptation of somethingB
    somethingX is a translation of somethingY

What will identify these somethingS such that these relationships can  
be made? It's that question that always brings me to a halt.

kc
-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 21:19:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 September 2010 21:19:26 GMT