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

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:02:18 -0800
Message-ID: <20110308150218.52283l13jn4asol6@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>

Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:


>
> 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.
>

FRBRCore and FRBRoo already have created a super-class of WEMI (each in
their own way, of course:-)). FRBRer, the "version" of FRBR that  
should beofficially sanctioned by IFLA, does not have that and I have  
heard it said
that the IFLA FRBR WG does not wish for there to be such a class. I don't
know the reasoning behind it, and hope that someone who does know could
bring that into the conversation.

Don't the sub-classes need to be defined in relation to the super-class?
If so, then you can't create a WEMI super-class and connect it to FRBRer
because FRBRer WEMI would not themselves have it defined as their  
super-class. OR
can you? Can you have a super-class with sub-classes even though the
sub-classes are ignorant of the relationship?

kc


-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 23:02:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 23:03:49 GMT