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

RE: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:38:47 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590E392002@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Jakob Voss" <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de>, <ian.davis@talis.com>
Cc: <tim.hodson@talis.com>, <public-lld@w3.org>
IMO, "FRBR" purists are shooting themselves in the foot by denying the reality of "Group 1 Entity". That's why I'm attracted to http://schema.org/CreativeWork and/or http://purl.org/dc/terms/BibliographicResource as useful alternatives. I suspect that the former has the inside track because the URI actually resolves to something human-friendly, (among other reasons).

Likewise, I think that "FRBR" does our patrons (and thus us) a disservice by rejecting the vital and intuitive notions of http://schema.org/Book and http://schema.org/Movie as 1st class objects. Books, Movies, and the promotion of modern "digital" manifestations/items to 1st class objects makes me appreciate http://purl.org/spar/fabio as an efficient RDF vocabulary for the library domain. Unfortunately, http://purl.org/spar/fabio/ doesn't roll off the tongue like http://schema.org/.

OTOH, "FRBR" and Schema.org seem to be equally blame-worthy in the sense that both are namespace-centric and single-type-at-a-time oriented. I suspect this is just a passing phase for Schema.org, though.
 
Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Voss [mailto:Jakob.Voss@gbv.de]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 7:37 PM
> To: ian.davis@talis.com
> Cc: tim.hodson@talis.com; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> > I'm not party to the full discussion but in our bib data modelling
> > at Talis we moved on from FRBR towards describing the real
> > objects, not an abstract model of them.
> 
> If you discuss about FRBR long enough, works, manifestations,
> expressions
> and items become pretty real ;-)
> 
> > Rob Styles at Talis blogged about it a couple of years ago but his
> > blog is temporarily offline. Here's a substantial quote from it
> though:
> > http://www.frbr.org/2009/11/13/styles-bringing-frbr-down-to-earth
> 
> Does this reflect current work at Talis on modeling/describing
> bibliographic
> resources?
> 
> http://consulting.talis.com/2011/07/british-library-data-model-
> overview/
> 
> I don't expect Talis and British Library to implement full FRBR, but I
> wonder about the lack of any concept of holdings, items, copies etc.
> compared to at least editions. Do the central URIs in the BL model
> represent physical books? What about books with two or more
> copies in the BL - two unrelated URIs? Are there no relations
> between multiple editions of the same book?
> 
> Jakob
> 
> --
> Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
> Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
> Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
> 37073 Goettingen - Germany
> +49 (0)551 39-10242
> http://www.gbv.de
> jakob.voss@gbv.de
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
> Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
> Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
> 37073 Goettingen - Germany
> +49 (0)551 39-10242
> http://www.gbv.de
> jakob.voss@gbv.de
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 03:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 03:39:33 GMT