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

Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:37:16 -0400
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111023193716.GA9557@julius>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:40:07AM +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
> could be applied to a frbr:Manifestation and a frbr:Expression (and,
> probably, in some some cases, frbr:Item), and the fact that these
> classes are disjointed with each other, a bibo:Book (or Article or
> what have you) cannot fit well into a FRBRized worldview.

Hi Ross,

Please remind me who exactly is saying that the WEMI classes are formally
disjoint.  There are several formalized expressions of FRBR in circulation.
Which one(s) do you mean here and what is the status of that expression
according to IFLA (or JSC, or anyone else)?  I was under the impression that
the RDF expressions were all still just drafts, hence subject to possible
revision...

> These properties exist because FRBR is *so* rigid. ...
...
> If bibo:Book or bibo:Article or dct:BibliographicResource are
> inherently disjoint with FRBR (since they do not constrain you from
> violating FRBR rules), the ov:commonThing properties let you express
> FRBR relationships on these resources without making your reasoner
> implode in a puff of logic.

What an image...!! :-)  Seriously, has anyone suggested that the disjointed
nature of these classes be re-assessed in light, say, of the principle of
minimal semantic commitment?  Is it too late for such a discussion?

Tom

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2011 19:38:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 23 October 2011 19:38:03 GMT