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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:49:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+ZZrCCgXEHGEmZCVZmuRy2KMH+imT9C2QZpg3RgFmvp7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
On 31 October 2011 16:17, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de> wrote:
> 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
>>  o  - 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.

I think that's a little unfair. There is certainly interest (from
practitioners and implementors) in having a more official FRBR-based
approach. Ian's was a great start to get things going, but since
libraries can tend towards being conservative, having something more
'blessed' could help with adoption.

FRBRoo I do find disappointingly complex; when I first heard of it, I
hoped it would be simpler than FRBR, by defining individual works,
manifestations and items as classes. But it is a rather intricate
representation.

> If you prefer non-disjoint FRBR concepts Work, Expression, Manifestation, and
> Item, just ask Ian Davis to remove this constraint.

I asked Ian last week. He was unwilling to remove those rules.

>  Personally I would
> appreciate this modification, but the world will not collapse, if I just use
> the FRBR ontology without respecting the disjointedness constraint.

So, you're saying all the others are no good, and that you're going to
continue using a vocabulary which forces you to contradict yourself
with every assertion? I hope we can find some better solution...

cheers,

Dan


> 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 20:50:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 October 2011 20:50:24 GMT