- From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:17:46 +0100
- 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 -- Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 15:20:55 UTC