Re: Open Library and RDF

Marcia,

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:51:13AM -0400, Marcia Zeng wrote:
> On the other hand, due to its high level super-class/property
> nature, there are still practitioners in the library
> community who were/are/will be reluctant to accept this model
> (specifically because frsad did not model for pre-framed
> frbr Group 3 entities (i.e., concept, object, event,
> and place)).  Our approach is to allow who would like to
> keep such differentiating to develop application profiles,
> for example, under frsad:Thema they could differentiate thema
> 'type' according to Group 3 or other ways.  We believe other
> communities and subject domains (e.g., art, medical, business,
> etc.) would have very different 'type' of themas from Group 3.

Marcia, would you be willing to present the idea of "application
profiles" for subject domains in the Friday afternoon joint session
in Pittsburgh?  It would be very interesting to hear how formally
(or not) the notion of application profile has been defined for
this use case.  Perhaps we could talk about whether the requirements
for this type of application profile are significantly different from
requirements for descriptive-metadata application profiles?   Is it
clear to the frsad community how an application profile should be
constructed, or is this an area where further work is needed?

> The FRSAD model and approach have received strong support
> from IFLA (a long story...).  My point is that, in the FR*
> family, this commitment to the sharing and reuse within and
> beyond library sectors is very determined.  I hope that Gordon
> will lead a good reconciled solution very soon.

That's wonderful to hear! :-)

Tom

-- 
Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>

Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 18:23:51 UTC