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>
Jeff,

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.

Tom

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 August 2010 21:58:57 GMT