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

Re: Open Library and RDF

From: Diane I. Hillmann <metadata.maven@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:08:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4C696294.1060908@gmail.com>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Dan Brickley said:
>>            As rules about what you might find in a certain kind of
>> FRBR-approved description, those rules are very valuable; considered
>> as observations about a world that will be further described by other
>> independent parties, they can seem quirky since they assume a kind of
>> closed world in which FRBR is the only party who gets to make
>> ontological rules. Sorry not to back this up with a detailed example -
>> I think I'm thinking of some of the issues Karen has previously
>> blogged on.
>>      
>    
It's just this notion that the library world (at least the JSC, but 
certainly others) have been clear about, that they want FRBR to be THE 
model for library data.  Others of us, in particular the DCMI/RDA Task 
Group, working directly on the RDA Vocabularies, have found this too 
limiting. Ergo, the article written for DLib earlier this year describes 
how the RDA Vocabularies were built with those different needs in mind.

http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html

One way of looking at the combination of generalized and bounded 
vocabularies is that the 'RDA vocabulary' is really the generalized 
properties, and that the properties associated with FRBR are the first 
pass at an Application Profile.  It's important to note here that this 
view is not at present shared with JSC, but it might be a place to start 
in discussing the AP for RDA that I think most here agree is desirable.

Diane
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 13:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:57 UTC