Re: Open Library and RDF

Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:


> Is everyone involved in the process happy with this?

This depends on what you mean by "involved in the process"? The FR  
committees and JSC (developers of RDA) are in accord on this  
principle, but there is considerable dissent in the US library  
community, in particular from specialist communities who tend to have  
different definitions of what constitutes a W,E,M. These differences  
are simmering in the background because as yet there is no  
implementation of FRBR as a data carrier. If this "strong" view of  
WEMI is constrained in the carrier, some folks are not going to be  
able to create metadata that expresses their community view.

kc


> It is an
> ontologically "strong" view of WEMI, which seems optimistic.
> With such a conceptually sophisticated model, I'd expect it
> to be well understood by relatively few people and therefore
> applied imperfectly in practice.  I'm wondering whether, in
> a linked-data environment, data consumers might need to be
> more tolerant of logical contradictions.  I guess my instinct
> would have been to err on the side of under-specification,
> at least initially.
>
> Is there a sense that FRBR should be promoted for wide uptake
> or that, in practice, its use will be limited to controlled
> environments with university-trained experts?  And is there a
> sense that the WEMI classes are so well-defined that experts
> can be expected to distinguish between them accurately and
> consistently?
>
> Tom
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 22:20:14 UTC