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

RE: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:31:29 -0700
Message-ID: <20111101133129.9769420jql2tvm75@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:

> I am confused by the statement that schema:CreativeWork "includes a  
> creator entity". The "creator" *property* refers to either a Person  
> or Organization entity but I don't think that implies those entities  
> are "included" in the CreativeWork.

You are right. I was reading the wrong column.


>
> I agree that a "statement of responsibility" (datatype) property  
> feels somehow redundant, but I don't think it should cause us to  
> doubt the need for a "creator" (object) property.

No, it doesn't do that. They aren't actually redundant because the  
"creator" is (in library parlance) a heading, and the "statement of  
responsibility" is part of the transcribed surrogate for the title  
page. They are distinctly different data elements. Both are needed.  
(Personally, I could live without the statement of responsibility, but  
the cataloging rules - based on ISBD - are quite clear about its  
necessity.)

> As argued above, I think WEMI (Group 1 Entities) should be modeled  
> as subclasses of schema:CreativeWork/dcterms:BibliographicResource.  
> Treating Group 2/3 Entities as subclasses of same seems too  
> philosophical to me.

Maybe not the same, but there needs to be the possibility of a graph,  
perhaps a named graph, that includes all of the information needed for  
a complete bibliographic description, including everything you wish to  
index and display. This is one of the things that worries librarians  
about moving from MARC, which is a stand-alone record, to linked data.  
They are afraid of parts getting lost or not been available when  
needed. I presume that we will have a "transfer" format that  
encompasses the entire "bibliographic record" for data exchange.

> I don't see the harm of letting someone claim that a notebook is a  
> Book. Being able to say it is also a frbr:Item or frbr:Manifestation  
> would make it even clearer.

Remember that a FRBR:Item must instantiate a FRBR:Manifestation, which  
in turn must manifest a FRBR:Expression of a FRBR:Work. Everything is  
always at least:
W|WE|WEM|WEMI. No bibliographic resource can be "just" an Item or a  
Manifestation. At least, NOT the way that FRBR is defined. An Item is  
always an Item *of*...


>> Is a flip-book a book
>> or a movie? (It *is* an example of moving pictures.
>
> I would argue that it is both a schema:Book AND a schema:Movie. This  
> gets back to my complaint about forcing things into a single type.

But weren't you saying that you wanted Book and Movie to be first  
class objects? To me that implies an either/or. It seems more  
plausible to have a resource that can have both Book and Movie aspects.

> I like the Schema.org vocabulary because I think that intuition is  
> underrated.

In the cataloging interfaces, a cataloger chooses a primary format  
(Book, Movie) and is given a template that looks not unlike the  
schema.org template (except it's in MARC, but it could be a friendlier  
display). The library record makes it possible to display a book or a  
movie to the user. I don't see what we lose in terms of services.

But the library determination of type is not based on intuition.  
Libraries have rules that determine which template you choose. That's  
because our use case is that we want to use each other's data and it  
takes work to change someone else's Book to your Serial if you  
disagree on the primary format. If we didn't need to share so deeply,  
the rules would be less important.

kc

>
> Jeff
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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 20:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 20:32:05 GMT