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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:07:49 +0100 (BST)
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <783366254.87704.1319472469257.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxltgw04.schlund.de>
All
 
The Open Metadata Registry currently does not support OWL so it does not contain
any of the FRBRer constraints. The full FRBRer ontology, including disjoint
classes (e.g. Group 1) is available at:
 
http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/frbrer.rdf
 
This information is available on the just-ported Library Data Resources page of
the LLD community:
 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/LLD/Library_Data_Resources#FRBR
 
Cheers
 
Gordon 
 



On 24 October 2011 at 16:48 Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Tom, this is a fair question, so I just revisited:
>
> Ian Davis' "original" FRBR vocabulary is formally constrained (see:
> http://vocab.org/frbr/core.rdf)
>
> RDA's has no formal constraints whatsoever (so a resource could be a
> Person, Subject, Place, Work and Item):
> http://rdvocab.info/uri/schema/FRBRentitiesRDA.rdf
>
> FRBRer (IFLA FRBR) also (despite our long debate on this list) has no
> formal constraints on any of the Group 1,2 or 3 classes
> (http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/5.html).
>
> So I stand corrected (and here we can dust off that old chestnut about
> the word "assume").  There is nothing logically wrong with with saying
> that a resource is both a frbr:Expression and a frbr:Manifestation.
>
> I cannot say that I feel that this is necessarily "right", though.
> Something seems ontologically wrong with the complete absence of
> constraints.
>
> -Ross.
>
> >
> >> 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 Monday, 24 October 2011 16:08:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 October 2011 16:08:29 GMT