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

Re: is FRBR relevant?

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 17:58:17 -0400
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100812215817.GA1168@octavius>

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 04:17:03PM -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 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.

That frad:soundLabel does not already exist is an opportunity

The LLD group could say clearly that it sees a need for
alignment here and say a few words about how that alignment
might be expressed.  Such a statement of problem could be used
for scoping a follow-on activity to work out the alignments
in more detail.

Of course owl:equivalentClass relationships would be great if
the models really do align so closely, but if the fit is not as
exact then subclass relationships would already be very helpful.


Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 21:58:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:55 UTC