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

RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:13:27 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909BF6F26@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Cc: "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Karen,

I came to the same conclusion when I tried to model FRBR in UML a while back (attached). My intuition tells me that the FRBR committee didn't adequately consider lost Works, and if they had they would have fixed their language. I assume Gordon's statement reflects this as a reconsideration.

OTOH, I am willing to believe (if necessary) that even lost Works have an identifiable Expression that is also "lost". The same could apply to lost Manifestations, although the use cases for differentiating the identity of lost things in this stack presumably gets increasingly thin.

It might be nice if a "lost" property was defined so this lost-ness could be expressed semantically.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:14 PM
> To: gordon@gordondunsire.com
> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Ross Singer; public-lld
> Subject: RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> 
> 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
> 



Workshop Use Case (FRBR).jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: Workshop_Use_Case__FRBR_.jpg)

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 19:14:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 September 2010 19:14:42 GMT