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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:08:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOyfVmGtYOmz=eeSLS2D8c-pdM0a6w36vw8QnK2ada0Mka=1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Karen, I don't believe any of the current FRBR models support this notion
of 'statement bundles' (distinct from WEMI entities) very well, and it's
not clear to me at the moment how best to model it in RDFS/OWL, although I
think Tom's suggestion to use 'named graphs' in some way is worthwhile. I'm
not convinced that FRBR properties represented as 'shareable units' is
workable in the Open World context of Linked Data and is liable to be more
useful in system-local metadata creation/maintenance strategies rather than
distribution/aggregation.

Jon

I check email just a couple of times daily; to reach me sooner, click here:
http://awayfind.com/jonphipps


On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Tom, this utility of FRBR for bundling statements into sharable units is
> indeed a key part of its design. The sharable units are not, however,
> W|E|M|I, but W|WE|WEM|WEMI. I did a blog post on this:
>  http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/**2010/05/frbr-and-sharability.**html<http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2010/05/frbr-and-sharability.html>
> You can see this in the cardinality constraint statements in FRBRer, where
> an E requires one and only one W, etc.
>
> It seems to me that the Tillett/Murray paper (which I don't have a link to
> at the moment, sorry, maybe someone can provide - I'm on the road) doesn't
> address this aspect of FRBR.
>
> More, perhaps, when I get better Internet access, but I've done about
> 2-dozen blog posts on FRBR, so there may be more fodder there under that
> tag.
>
>
> kc
>
> Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:
>
>  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
>> cost?
>>
>>  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
>>
>> --
>> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 16:09:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 October 2011 16:09:37 GMT