W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:30:42 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB72CE@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Richard Light" <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-lld@w3.org>
Richard,

I don't know enough about FRBRoo to comment on its strengths and
weaknesses. Without picking sides, there are a lot of "FRBR" ontologies
and in principle they can be mapped to be interoperable, up to a point.
This section in the OWL Guide might be helpful:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyMapping

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Light [mailto:richard@light.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:07 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Ross Singer; Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> 
> In message
> <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB715A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>,
> "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> writes
> >
> >Inferencing aside, having half the story for an Expression or Work is
> >still enough to justify identifying these individuals. I wouldn't
> >consider them any less "real" than their fully described
counterparts.
> >UUIDs are free. This allows downstream agents to assert owl:sameAs
> with
> >another individual and thus fill in more of the story on both sides.
> >(As mere mortals, we'll never ever have "the full story" on
anything.)
> 
> I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a few days now ...
> 
> I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL,
> and
> thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its
> properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum
> world, where information about an entity of interest (person, place,
> event, ...) will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This shouldn't
> stop us from asserting what we _do_ know (or believe).
> 
> As a matter of interest, where does FRBRoo
> (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_inro.html) come into this discussion?
> 
> Richard
> --
> Richard Light
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:32:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 21:32:07 GMT