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 13:45:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20111101134527.134974xa8nf2odwn@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Jakob,

I would love to see some examples of treating FRBR classes as not  
disjoint. I'm having trouble imagining the situations, so some  
examples would make this discussion more concrete. (I have a gut  
feeling that disjoint classes will cause us to run into difficult  
situations, but I can't come up with a real case.)

kc

Quoting Jakob Voss <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de>:

> Jeff Young wrote:
>
>> frbr:Work
>> rdfs:subClassOf schema:CreativeWork, dcterms:BibliographicResoure .
>> frbr:Expression
>> rdfs:subClassOf schema:CreativeWork, dcterms:BibliographicResoure .
>> frbr:Manifestation
>> rdfs:subClassOf schema:CreativeWork, dcterms:BibliographicResoure .
>> frbr:Item
>> rdfs:subClassOf schema:CreativeWork, dcterms:BibliographicResoure .
>
> How about
>
> schema:CreativeWork owl:equivalentClass
>   frbr:Endeavour, dcterms:BibliographicResource .
>
> Is there any relevant difference between the three? You could argue that
> not
> every creative work is bibliographic, but it becomes bibliographic as
> soon as
> you describe it. A document is whatever functions as a document (see
> Buckland's classical paper "What is a 'document'?" from 1997:
> http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/whatdoc.html). Furthermore:
>
> frbr:Endeavour owl:equivalentClass
>   schema:CreativeWork,
>   dcterms:BibliographicResource,
>   bibo:Document,
>   foaf:Document .
>
>>> 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.
>
> I fully agree. Likewise a library can be both a collection, a place, and
> an
> organisation.
>
>>> 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.
>
> If libraries would start ignoring edge cases, they would have at least
> solutions for the most common cases. Instead they first try to solve
> all cases and end up not having solved any. It would not harm to start
> with a simplified schema such as two or three non-disjoint classes
>
> frbr:Work
> frbr:Edition (possibly, in doubt just skip it)
> frbr:Item
>
> and get to the difficult cases (frbr:Manifestation, frbr:Expression,
> etc.)
> later. The basic distinction between an abstract creative work,
> document,
> bibliographic entity .. at one side and a concrete single exemplar,
> holding,
> copy ... at the other side, is already more than schema.org, bibo, foaf
> ...
> offer. FRBR could really help in this common case. Instead it tries to
> solve every edge case by splitting the universe into four disjoint
> classes.
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
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 20:45:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 November 2011 20:45:57 GMT