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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Jon Phipps <jonphipps@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:59:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOyfVmFFSH3k2iZRBq5F6VWAaaRF9sp5c-RipdnYvENb5grAow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 09:39:27PM -0400, Jon Phipps wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Right - though they would translate nicely into "named graphs", with
> significant practical advantages (provenance, exchange, distributed
> maintenance...).
>
>
True!


> > disjointness doesn't really seem to be much of an issue.
>
> To be clear - you mean that if the bundles of statements are not
> entities/classes/objects, it doesn't make sense to say they are disjoint,
> right?
>

Right.


>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 16:00:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 October 2011 16:00:49 GMT