W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2010

RE: is FRBR relevant?

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF59094F94DE@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Tom,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that frad:soundLabel already exists. FRSAD
doesn't provide any clues for how to express "sign or sequence of signs"
in a systematic way. I was just trying to reflect the model I thought
you were proposing realistically and misunderstood a little along the
way. I'll use x-frsad: in the future. 

Relating FRSAD to OWL/SKOS by analogy isn't good enough. I'm looking for
plausible ways to relate FRSAD concepts to OWL and SKOS using
owl:equivalentClass so FRBR/FRAD/FRSAD/libraries will operate in the
mainstream.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Baker [mailto:thomasbaker49@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Baker
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:41 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Karen Coyle; Jodi Schneider; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
> 
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:33:23PM -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > ex:nomen1 a frsad:Nomen ; # could be inferred from skosxl:Label
> > 	a skosxl:Label ;
> > 	frsad:soundLabel ex:genericresource1 ; # content-negotiable for
> > audio/* media-types
> > 	skosxl:literalForm "Fire Alarm" .
> >
> > frsad:soundLabel a owl:ObjectProperty ;
> > 	rdfs:domain frsad:Nomen ;
> > 	rdfs:range owl:Thing .
> >
> > Should we start hoping that SKOS B.2.4 can be relaxed so frsad:Nomen
> > doesn't become a specialized niche?
> 
> Hang on... - I just made up the hypothetical "ex:soundLabel"
> for the purpose of the example.  Are you saying that there
> already exists a "frsad:soundLabel" (along with an frsad:Nomen)
> in an already existing frsad: namespace?
> 
> Also, I thought frsad:Nomen was analogous to a SKOS label,
> not a concept (i.e., the range of frsad:soundLabel, not
> the domain).  Do I have it backwards?
> 
> To be clear, I was picturing:
> 
>     [instance of Thema]          ex:soundLabel       [instance of
> Nomen]
>     [instance of Nomen]          ex:soundForm        (serialization of
> sound)
> 
> analogously to:
> 
>     [instance of skos:Concept]   skosxl:prefLabel    [instance of
> skosxl:Label]
>     [instance of skosxl:Label]   skosxl:literalForm  (literal)
> 
> Tom
> 
> > > Skos:prefLabel is a sub-property of rdfs:label, and the
> > > rdfs:range of rdfs:label is rdfs:Literal [2] -- but that only
> > > applies to the label properties, not to the skosxl:Label
> > > class itself.  I don't see any obvious arguments against
> > > coining a convention to the effect that the property chain
> > > "ex:soundLabel, ex:soundForm" expresses the "sonic label"
> > > of a SKOS concept, with skosxl:Label as the rdfs:range of
> > > ex:soundLabel. Or something to that effect...
> 
> --
> Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 20:17:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 August 2010 20:17:34 GMT