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

Re: reconciliation of disparate models - Karen

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 19:43:31 -0400
To: public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110313234331.GG5764@octavius>

    This is something I think we need to get some more words
    for. :-). IFLA has developed a "model" it calls FRBR, which
    IFLA has instantiated as FRBRer.  Other folks seem to want
    to also have a bibliographic model, but one that does not
    follow the "rules" laid out in the FRBR document. (FaBiO
    is one of these.) These other models are legitimate, and
    perhaps even better suited to "civilian" bibliographic data
    than any models used for library cataloging.  But I think
    we'll continue to foster confusion if we call them "FRBR"
    even though they vary considerably from the IFLA FRBR
    model and entity definitions in the document. (And when
    you think about what "FRBR" means: functional requirements
    for bibliographic *records* it becomes even worse when
    applied to linked data.)

    In the case of FaBIo I asked the creators to give a
    description of the criteria they used to make their
    decisions, but didn't hear back about that= .  In looking
    at the classes and sub-classes I can't divine what makes
    one bibliographic concept a sub-class of Expression but
    others not. Maybe that doesn't matter, but it would sure
    help me understand what they are modeling and how someone
    who wanted to could extend their model. For example,
    if I wanted to model "is translation of" where would it go?

    I'd like to see a thousand bibliographic models bloom,
    but I think if we give them all the name "FRBR" we're
    sowing confusion (to stay within the agricultural
    metaphor). Not sure what you are saying here. They
    continue the "hierarchic" dependency between WEMI in
    their model. At least, it seems so to me. Even though
    some entities are many to many, in their model you still
    cannot have an M and a W without an E. If you can find
    evidence to the contrary, please post the slide number. I
    looked and could not find it. Or do you not consider the
    strict I->M<->E->W flow a dependency?

Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2011 23:44:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:43 UTC