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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:39:49 -0700
Message-ID: <20111031133949.18405vnv30wh78gl@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>:


>
> 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.

The last time I brought this up, Ian Davis replied that his version of  
FRBR is not being maintained (there have been changes to the IFLA FRBR  
model since then). We should be sure that we are using an up-to-date  
and maintained implementation of FRBR in RDF. Some could potentially  
take on responsibility vocab.org/frbr, but I don't know that anyone has.

kc


> 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 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
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 20:40:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 October 2011 20:40:20 GMT