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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Jon Phipps <jonphipps@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 21:39:27 -0400
Message-Id: <6B67420E-9FB0-4DBF-B382-59EF9233D081@gmail.com>
Cc: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

This is basically how I view FRBR. And 'bundles of statements' doesn't necessarily translate nicely into entities, classes, or even objects. Without those, disjointness doesn't really seem to be much of an issue. 


Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-10-26, at 7:16 PM, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

> 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.
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2011 01:40:15 UTC

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