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

RE: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:36:31 -0700
Message-ID: <20111031213631.16935130xqjlhutr@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.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).

Jeff, I agree that a Group 1 Entity seems useful in many  
circumstances. It does not, however, as I read it, have the same scope  
as http://schema.org/CreativeWork or dc:/BibliographicResource. I  
believe that you need to at least include the Group 2 entities from  
FRBR to have something equivalent to the schema.org class, because  
that class includes a creator entity. Neither FRBR Group 1 nor ISBD  
include entities that represent creators (they include only a  
statement of responsibility, which is a textual statement).

DC's BibliographicResource seems to be rather abstract and I think you  
could make the argument that it is either equivalent to FRBR:Work  
and/or to the entirety of FRBR using all 3 groups. (Actually, I'd like  
to hear which of those others think it is... or if it is something  
else altogether.)

>
> 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.

It will be interesting to see if those objects work in practice, and  
what people do with the grey areas. We all know what a prototypical  
book looks like, but there are edge cases, like a spiral-bound  
soft-cover 100-page government training document. Is it anything  
between covers? What if the covers are missing? Is a flip-book a book  
or a movie? (It *is* an example of moving pictures.) My guess is that  
schema.org can afford to ignore the edge cases in a way that libraries  
cannot. schema.org is not endeavoring to catalog and preserve  
materials. I think that libraries can display materials to patrons AS  
IF books and movies were first class objects without having to design  
their schema to treat them as such.

kc

> 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
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 04:37:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 04:37:12 GMT