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

Re: Disjointedness of FRBR classes

From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:44:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAiX05EJb-UsAWyHj2mJ3LqF3-QYuE+ruXUCsXMgzJd=7bCcxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakob Voss <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
I'm not party to the full discussion but in our bib data modelling at Talis
we moved on from FRBR towards describing the real objects, not an abstract
model of them. Rob Styles at Talis blogged about it a couple of years ago
but his blog is temporarily offline. Here's a substantial quote from it
though:

http://www.frbr.org/2009/11/13/styles-bringing-frbr-down-to-earth
On 31 Oct 2011 22:34, "Jakob Voss" <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de> wrote:

> 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
> talk.
> >
> > 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
> constraint.
> >
> > 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
> http://prefix.cc.
> I will not hesitate to do so as soon as the ignored disjointedness
> constraint becomes a problem.
>
> Jakob
>
>
> --
> Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
> Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
> Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
> 37073 Goettingen - Germany
> +49 (0)551 39-10242
> http://www.gbv.de
> jakob.voss@gbv.de
>
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 22:44:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 October 2011 22:45:00 GMT