Re: Question about a link relationship attribute

I've looked a Fabio and I think it would be worth having a discussion  
about the FRBR philosophy behind it, since it doesn't fit other  
interpretations of FRBR that I've seen. Some examples:

cover as sub-class of expression
critical edition as sub-class of work

The first would probably be considered either Manifestation or even  
Item in, for example, the RDA interpretation of FRBR. The second I'm  
pretty sure would be a type of Expression (I'm assuming that  
"sub-class of work" means a type of Work, not that Expression is  
considered a sub-class of work), but maybe I'm assuming that because  
of the word "edition" in there.

In any case, the examples for "Form of work" in FRBR are:

"The form of work is the class to which the work belongs (e.g., novel,  
play, poem, essay, biography, symphony, concerto, sonata, map,  
drawing, painting, photograph, etc.)."

While "form of expression" in FRBR is:

"The form of expression is the means by which the work is realized  
(e.g., through alpha-numeric notation, musical notation, spoken word,  
musical sound, cartographic image, photographic image, sculpture,  
dance, mime, etc.)."

Yet Fabio has "sound recording" as a sub-class of Work.

There are definitely resource types here that aren't covered directly  
in FRBR (e.g. database), so it would be an interesting case to use for  
applying FRBR. I'm just concerned that it appears to use different  
definitions for WEMI than the FRBR described by IFLA. For that reason,  
a statement of how the FRBR assignments were made would be very helpful.

kc

Quoting David Shotton <david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk>:

> Dear Eric,
>
> CiTO [1] is not the appropriate ontology to use.  As Jodi knows, we  
> have now developed a suite of Semantic Publishing and Referencing  
> (SPAR) Ontologies [2] that permits you describe what you want.  CiTO  
> is part of that suite, but is strictly limited to characterizing  
> citations between publication entities, not for characterizing  
> bibliographic references to the objects of such citations, for which  
> BiRO [3], the Bibliographic Reference Ontology is appropriate.
>
> BiRO also permits bibliographic references (incomplete FRBR  
> expressions, for example, lacking ISBN) to be related to  
> bibliographic records about the same entity (hopefully complete,  
> including ISBN, copyright statement, etc.), bibliographic references  
> to be described as part of reference lists, and bibliographic  
> records to be described as part of library catalogues and other  
> bibliographic collections, as the explanatory diagram at [4] shows.
>
> Additionally, FaBiO [5], the FRBR-aligned Bibliographic Ontology,  
> can be used to describe bibliographic entities like journal articles  
> and books.  In this it resembles BIBO, but it is more expressive,  
> since it uses the FRBR hierarchy.
>
> If you had a web page that was indeed a local representation of a  
> whole book, you could say:
>
>    @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>    @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
>    @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
>    @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>    @prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/spar/frbr/> .
>    @prefix fabio: <http://purl.org/spar/fabio/> .
>
>    <http://***>  #  Publisher's URL for the book
>           rdf:type fabio:Book
>         ; dcterms:publisher [ a foaf:Organization ; foaf:name "***" ]
>         ; fabio:hasPublicationYear "2010"^^xsd:gYear
>         ; *frbr:alternate <http://***)>* .   # *URL of your local HTML
>    copy of the book*
>
> However, your examples (e.g. of an OPAC entry or a bookstore item  
> page) implies that you do not really mean the local representation  
> of the /entire book /on a web page, but rather the local  
> representation of a *bibliographic reference to the book *or a  
> *bibliographic record describing the book*.  In the latter case, you  
> could say:
>
>    @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
>    @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
>    @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
>    @prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
>    @prefix frbr: <http://purl.org/spar/frbr/> .
>    @prefix fabio: <http://purl.org/spar/fabio/> .
>    @prefix biro: <http://purl.org/net/bibo/>.
>
>    <http://***>  #  Publisher's URL for the book
>           rdf:type fabio:Book
>         ; dcterms:publisher [ a foaf:Organization ; foaf:name "***" ]
>         ; fabio:hasPublicationYear "2010"^^xsd:gYear
>    *    ; bibo:isReferencedBy <http://*****)>**  # URL of your local
>    web page containing bibliographic reference to the book
>         ; bibo:isReferencedBy <http://www.amazon.co.uk/*****)>  # **URL
>    of Amazon page containing **bibliographic **reference to the book
>         ; bibo:isReferencedBy <http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/*****)> .  #
>    **URL of Oxford University's OPAC catalogue item about the book
>    *
>
> If you send us a real-world example, we will be happy to return a  
> SPAR encoding.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> David
>
> [1] http:/purl.org/spar/cito
> [2]  
> http://opencitations.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/introducing-the-semantic-publishing-and-referencing-spar-ontologies/
> [3] http://purl.org/spar/bibo/
> [4] http://purl.org/spar/fabio/
> [5]  
> https://sempublishing.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/sempublishing/BiRO/BiRO.png
>
>
>
> On 15/02/2011 14:17, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>> Hi Eric, (& adding Silvio, David to cc:)
>>
>> On 15 Feb 2011, at 13:58, Eric Hellman wrote:
>>
>>> Some lazy questions- I'm sure people have thought and discussed before.
>>>
>>> I was just acquainting myself with cito, and was wondering what  
>>> people thought was the best link relationship  to use for the case  
>>> of a web page which is a local representation of a book, as might  
>>> be found on an OPAC item page, bookstore item page, or a  
>>> discussion page on social network page. None of the cito  
>>> attributes fit- same with bibo.
>>
>> I agree, based on [1].
>>
>>>
>>> Or is the web page just rdf:about the book?
>>
>> This seems reasonable to me.
>>
>>> If I put an "like" button on the page, is the user liking the book  
>>> or the discussion about the book?
>>
>> On the other hand, I do agree that this is a problem. But it may  
>> not be clear to the *user* which one they're doing, so maybe that's  
>> ok. I'm curious to hear other views, though!
>>
>> -Jodi
>>
>> [1] http:/purl.org/spar/cito
>>
>>>
>>> Eric Hellman
>>> President, Gluejar, Inc.
>>> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
>>> Montclair, NJ 07042
>>> USA
>>>
>>> eric@hellman.net <mailto:openurl@gmail.com>
>>> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
>>> @gluejar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> -- 
>
> Dr David Shotton david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk  
> <mailto:mailto:david.shotton@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
> Reader in Image Bioinformatics
>
> Image Bioinformatics Research Group http://ibrg.zoo.ox.ac.uk
> Department of Zoology, University of Oxford                  tel:  
> +44-(0)1865-271193
> South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK                    fax:  
> +44-(0)1865-310447
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 17:07:00 UTC