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

Re: is FRBR relevant?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:32:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4C669AE5.8050100@few.vu.nl>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
CC: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 8/14/10 3:31 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> I started a draft this morning, but I'm on vacation this week. I'll
> sneak in what I can. I think a Linked Data perspective has something
> useful to add.


Oh, yes, certainly!

Antoine


>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
>> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:27 AM
>> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
>>
>> On 8/13/10 4:25 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
>>> *From:* public-xg-lld-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Emmanuelle
>> Bermes
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 13, 2010 5:07 AM
>>> *To:* Karen Coyle
>>> *Cc:* public-xg-lld@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: is FRBR relevant?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be useful if the group could
>>> - provide a specific use case for subject search (which was the
>>> beginning of this thread)
>>> - identify the terminology gaps between library world and SemWeb
>> world
>>> (I think that this work on terminology is something that we hadn't
>>> identified per se, but I'm currently at IFLA and I hear a lot about
>>> records, metadata, elements and sub-elements, properties, concepts,
>>> ontologies, etc. all used in a very mixed up and not precise way...
> )
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed to both!
>> I guess subject search will naturally appear in the use cases. There
>> were already quite a few of them in the SKOS uses cases [1], which are
>> very close to library concerns.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/
>>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:32:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:32:56 GMT