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 10:13:45 -0700
Message-ID: <20100915101345.9nbx7bq1esswgo0k@kcoyle.net>
To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>:


>  
> There are no such restrictions in the inverse direction, so a Work   
> does not need
> to have an Expression, etc.


Gordon, I am not sure this is true, that a work does not need an  
expression. The FRBR diagrams show explicit relationships between work  
and expression and expression and manifestation, but no such  
relationship between work and manifestation.

The text (2008) describes work thus:

"We recognize the work through individual realizations or expressions  
of the work, but the work itself exists only in the commonality of  
content between and among the various expressions of the work." (p.17,  
PDF)(http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current3.htm#3.2)

So it sounds like a work is a sum of its expressions, and without an  
expression there is no work.

In addition, the FRBR "attributes" are very strictly bound to the  
entities, so it appears that you cannot have, for example, a language  
of text if you do not have an expression entity.

Or has some thinking changed since the text was written?

kc


> On 15 September 2010 at 17:28 "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 17:14:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 September 2010 17:14:19 GMT