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

RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20100915091419.ogmmv52b8kwsskk0@kcoyle.net>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Of course, I forgot my link:
   http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2010/05/frbr-and-sharability.html

kc

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:

> The counter argument is that the dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf solution
> isn't documented anywhere and other solutions are plausible. Without a
> systematic connection, SPARQL connections between Work and Manifestation
> become a guessing game.
>
> The question is, how much grief will the RDF designer get for wanting to
> coin a new 303 URI? If the framework is flexible, then go ahead and have
> them coin a 303 URI for Expression:
>
> http://example.org/expression/45678 a frbr:Expression .
>
> My suggestion of using a hash assumes that Expression will always be a
> twin to Work and is easily piggybacked on it without fighting for
> infrastructure support. If and when Expressions deserve 303 URIs, the
> old hash URIs can migrate to the 303 URI using owl:sameAs.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf
> Of
>> Ross Singer
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:13 AM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Cc: Karen Coyle; public-lld
>> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Another solution would be to identify the expression as a hash on
> the
>> > work URI. For example:
>> >
>> > <http://example.org/work/12345> a frbr:Work .
>> > <http://example.org/work/12345/#frbr:Expression> a frbr:Expression .
>> > <http://example.org/manifestation/98765> a frbr:Manifestation .
>> >
>>
>> This would work, sure.  The only downside I see is that it would
>> require reconciliation and maintenance should a real Expression
>> eventually come along.
>>
>> Personally, I think sacrificing the purity of FRBR (via
>> rda:workManifested, etc. with no Expression declared) would be a more
>> desirable alternative than the potential costs associated with
>> shimming in some Fauxpression just to meet the (unrealistic, frankly)
>> requirements of a(n ivory tower-esque) data model.
>>
>> Honestly, does the internet break, do libraries spontaneously combust,
>> does data turn into meaningless gibberish all because somebody left
>> out an Expression resource?
>>
>> -Ross.
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 16:14:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 September 2010 16:14:55 GMT