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

Re: FRBR and classes ('frbr:Works in the age of mechanical reproduction'...)

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:15:19 +0100
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>, "Murray, Ronald" <rmur@loc.gov>
Message-ID: <20110321161519.GC13317@styx.org>
* [2011-03-21 16:38:19 +0100] Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> écrit:

] Rather I'm saying "FRBR: the clue is
] in the name" -- let's not lose touch with the "Functional
] Requirements" nature of FRBR. My fear is that RDF folk have looked at
] FRBR, seen four capitalised noun-phrase concepts and run straight into
] the natural conclusion that we should treat each as an RDF class that
] can be instantiated, and that therefore the appropriate way to *meet*
] FRBR's functional requirements is to exchange data using RDF classes
] called 'Work', 'Manifestation' etc. In other words we jump too quickly
] from FRBR as requirements, to FRBR as modeling solution.

Fair enough, this is probably the mistake we made originally.

And if we don't make that mistake then we preserve flexibility
to search for, e.g. a "work" without having the meaning of
"work" built into the data which addresses the problems I
mentioned with the cataloging rules.

-w
-- 
William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 16:15:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 March 2011 16:15:50 GMT