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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:17:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4EAEBC1A.5060707@gbv.de>
To: public-lld@w3.org
On 30.10.2011 20:07, Tom Baker wrote:

> By "models", do you mean formal representations of the models in RDF, e.g.:
>  http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/frbrer.rdf - FRBRer
>  http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/FRBR1.0.1.rdfs - FRBRoo
>  http://vocab.org/frbr/core.rdf  - Ian Davis
> Or do you mean the texts on which representations are based, e.g.:
>  http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf = http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm - FRBRer
>  http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/wgfrbr/FRBRoo_V9.1_PR.pdf - FRBRoo
>  http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html - Ian Davis
>  -- based on http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm ??

That's splitting hairs. The only relevant representation of FRBR in RDF 
is http://vocab.org/frbr/ anyway. It was the first, it is documented 
best and any average developer will find this namespace, if looking for 
FRBR. Everything else, explicitly this thread, is academic ivory tower 
talk. If you prefer non-disjoint FRBR concepts Work, Expression, 
Manifestation, and Item, just ask Ian Davis to remove this constraint. 
Personally I would appreciate this modification, but the world will not 
collapse, if I just use the FRBR ontology without respecting the 
disjointedness constraint.


Jakob Vo▀ <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 G÷ttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 15:20:55 UTC

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