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 23:34:42 +0100
Message-Id: <4EAF30920200006F000243B6@mail.vz.gbv.de>
Cc: <ian.davis@talis.com>,<public-lld@w3.org>
Dan Brickley  wrote:

>> 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
> I think that's a little unfair. 

yes it is :-)

> 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.

I prefer a popular solution that can actually be used, over an "ideal" 
solution that is only relevant to some experts. FRBR was already 
blessed enough in 1998, so libraries had time enough for adption.
In the end, the adoption of FRBR is irrelevant. What's relevant is 
the solution of problems - FRBR in any of its forms is nothing but 
a tool for this.

>> If you prefer non-disjoint FRBR concepts Work, Expression, 
>> Manifestation, and Item, just ask Ian Davis to remove this
> I asked Ian last week. He was unwilling to remove those rules.

good to know.

>>  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...

I don't contradict myself with the assertion, I just hijack Ians 
FRBR ontology URIs, assuming that most people are interested
in simple URIs but less in applying the disjointedness constraint. 
A better solution may be to create a fork and upvote it on
I will not hesitate to do so as soon as the ignored disjointedness
constraint becomes a problem.


Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
37073 Goettingen - Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 22:35:14 UTC

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