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

Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:45:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4C91F567.20507@few.vu.nl>
CC: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Hi Ross, Jeff,


> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, 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.
>>
> You'll notice that in my example I didn't use
> dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf, but rather rda:workManifested (which,
> actually, looking more closely at it, doesn't seem right either: "A
> work embodied in a manifestation." with no range -- implying a
> literal?).  My point actually isn't either of those, it just is making
> the point that a direct relationship between M and W is useful, simple
> and eliminates a lot of hand waving and teeth gnashing with no
> discernible downside.
>
> And while, no, dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf isn't documented
> anywhere, if this group saw it as useful (or any other combination of
> inverse relationships, including something new) it could document,
> recommend and endorse it.  Then your semantics are there.  There is
> practically zero RDF/FRBR/RDA data to draw upon presently - I don't
> see the point in stubbornly sticking to the letter of a model that is
> currently unproven, unused and doesn't deal well with our hundreds of
> millions of legacy records.  Is the FRBR model so immutable that it
> cannot exist with the addition of a direct relationship between W and
> M?  If it eases the transition of the old into the new and reduces
> costs, wouldn't that generally be considered beneficial?
>
>> 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.
>>
> Unless assertions are applied to the Fauxpression and then you get
> into reconciliation, which is expensive and most likely requires human
> intervention.
>
> If the Fauxpression is, indeed, just a placeholder that we aren't
> expecting to add any assertions to -- again, I ask, what's the point?
> Just to make things more complicated?


Btw could we use RDF blank nodes as an alternative here? That would bring no extra URI, and *if you think you need it*, the ability to have these FRBR statements that link the W and the M (and thus to access one from another) .

Jeff's solution seems better if one wants to reconcile one day the Es. But if we manage to reconcile Ws and Ms properly, I doubt that reconciling *non-described* Es would really bring anything useful addition for an application.

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:46:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 September 2010 10:46:33 GMT