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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:16:01 -0400
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111026231601.GA26665@julius>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:30:28PM +0100, Ross Singer wrote:
> > Would it help simply to stop saying that the WEMI classes are disjoint?
> What's the benefit in this?  What have I said if I say that this thing
> is a Work and an Expression (since neither of these exist in nature)?

If Work and Expression were considered "points of view", at different levels of
abstraction, for describing a resource, then the utility of FRBR could lie in
the way FRBR prescribes conventions for bundling particular sets of statements
about a resource into separate graphs.  If the bundle of statements
conventionally made for Works, and the bundle of statements conventionally made
for Expressions, were followed with reasonable consistency, they could help
distribute the maintenance of the set of information held in legacy catalog
records to multiple agencies.  This is a _practical_ benefit.

Turning the question around: If Works and Expressions do not exist in nature, 
what is the benefit in saying that a resource _cannot_ be both?   And what is the

> If anything, removing the restrictions seems to dilute the point of
> bothering with FRBR at all.

Removing formal-semantic "restrictions" does not necessarily mean removing 
semantic "conventions", which may have real practical utility (see above).


Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 23:16:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:44 UTC