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

Re: is FRBR relevant?

From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:51:51 -0400
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C889E537.EB6C%mzeng@kent.edu>
Hi, Karen,
See comments below.
On 8/12/10 3:35 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

>
> 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?

Tom, the definitions of Thema and Nomen are:

Thema: any entity used as a subject of a work
Nomen: any sign or sequence of signs (alphanumeric characters,
symbols, sound, etc.) by
which a thema is known, referred to or addressed as.

I read this to mean that Thema = concept, but I'm less sure about
Nomen because it appears that the term Nomen covers both identifier
and a prefLabel (see section 6.2 where it gives the attributes of
Nomen as "identifier" and "controlled name").

kc

MZ: I may have lost tracking the discussions today.  I just want to
mention one thing I discussed before in my previous email, the
frsad:Nomen type 'identifier' is one example of a type of nomen.
It could be a common kind of identifier we have
seen, such as the Chemical Registry Number of any chemical
compound.  However this is not to be mixed with an 'identifier'
that represent a thema's location or placeholder in a database or
Any implmentation.  I would compare this with the situation of
skos:Concept.  Each skos:Concept is usually represented by an
identifier (including URI), but this identifier is not a part of
a conceptual model, i.e., it is not modeled as a property
of a skos:Concept in the SKOS reference.
One reason to provide examples of these values for a nomen type is that we were asked by some reviewers to
map FRSAD to FRAD which had been released just before our draft report was released for review.
The relationship of FRSAD with FRAD is explained in FRSAD appendix B while some statements
were also included in the main body of the report.
I hope this clears the question you had in your message.
I will catch up with other discussion issues later.
Marcia


>
> 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>
>
>
>



--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 21:52:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 August 2010 21:52:40 GMT