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

AW: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Svensson, Lars <l.svensson@d-nb.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:55:12 +0200
Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA19729840C0232BA@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Karen:
> 
> 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.

Yes, and particulary in RDF (open world) we don't _have_ to have
manifestation-to-expression relation.

> 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.

I agree in general, too. Would a possible solution  for the expression
level be to create an ad hoc-expression for each manifestation, just in
order to have one? That way you cannot build a good user interface _at
once_ but eventually you could (intellectually) merge the "records"
describing the same expression. That would definitely be a human task
(crowdsourcing?).

All the best,

Lars
 
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 08:55:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 September 2010 08:55:48 GMT