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

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:38:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4D76AFDE.708@few.vu.nl>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Hi Jeff,


> Like Ross and Karen, I wish WEMI was modeled on a higher level of abstraction. (rdfs:Resource and owl:Thing are too abstract.) I suggested once that “Group1” seems like a good name, but the argument was that this isn’t a subclass relationship. The fact that there are NO subclasses in FRBR leaves me wondering what the concern is.
> I would be willing to believe any number of names for this class like BibliographicEntity or BibliographicResource or BibliographicThing.


Well, if you need it such a "bibliographic blob", my two cents would be to just go for it and create this new class. But create it as a union of the classes for W, E, M or I. This is perfectly allowed, isn't it?

And then just use OWL for representing this axiom, et voila, according to the OWL semantics [1], W is all of a sudden a subclass of your blob, and so are E, M and I. I really don't see any reason for which one could not do that.

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/rdfs.html#owl_unionOf_rdf

>
> Jeff
>
> *From:* public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:45 AM
> *To:* Karen Coyle
> *Cc:* public-lld@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     And I thank you, Ross, for that and for your clarity in this discussion.
>
>
> Hey, whenever you need somebody to come in and punt on the hard problems, I'm your man.
>
>
>     I still think it should be possible to model bibliographic data using the FRBR or RDA attributes but without the division into WEMI for Group 1 data. (e.g. the RDA generalized attributes) If you have a work title, well, you have a work title. You don't need a work entity to have a work title. (I realize fully that I may be wrong about this, but this is what I *want* to be right.) The predicates and objects should stand on their own without the separation (and separate identifiers) that WEMI entities require. Where this falls apart is in the WEMI-to-WEMI relationships, but I just figure there must be a way to solve that as a practical problem so that we don't have to shoe-horn everything into WEMI as separate entities.
>
>
> I absolutely agree with this. One of the really nice things about SKOS (imo) is that it only defines domains and ranges on the properties that are kos-specific (broader/narrower/inScheme/etc.) and not to the things that are generally useful even outside the context of SKOS (prefLabel, altLabel, notes, etc.). This way we now have a consistent means of defining a preferred and alternate labels, for any resource, without entailing that the resource is also a concept.
>
> The same definitely needs to apply to (some) RDA terms. We should be able to model resources in BIBO or DC Terms (or whatever), enhance with the more domain-specific properties RDA brings to the table, without muddying things up semantically by dragging in FRBR along with it.
>
> As far as the WEMI-to-WEMI relationships (and by this, I think you mean relationships like adaptations, translations, derivative works, etc., right?), you're right, this gets a bit more complicated. I still think you can abstract a lot of this away through unconstrained properties: hasTranslation/isTranslationOf, hasAdaptation/isAdaptationOf, etc. where the first is, say, a play modeled in RDA or BIBO or DC Terms and the latter a film, ballet or score modeled in something else (perhaps oblivious to FRBR). Let's say "Romeo and Juliet". We can assume that something in the WEM chain is adapted here, but we don't have to know (or care!) what it is, exactly, to say that Tchaikovsky, Berlioz, Prokofiev, or Zeffirelli's works are related and how. That is, we should be able to say that Berlioz's "Romeo and Juliet", modeled in the Music Ontology is an adaption of (or inspired by, or whatever is most appropriate) Shakespeare's play, /without/ the W-E-M-I model necessarily needing to 
be
> explicitly invoked. If and when W-E-M-I and their relationships for these two endeavors are created, that makes the relationship even richer, but should not be required simply to link two citations.
>
> This doesn't diminish the value of FRBR in any way, it just lowers the overhead.
>
>
>     Hmmm. I wonder what else I can be frustrated about before 8 a.m.? :-)
>
>
> Oh, we can find things...
>
> -Ross.
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 22:37:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 22:37:49 GMT