RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

To put my example back into context, I was trying to explain what it would take for me to believe that a given individual had two different types. To recap, owl:equivalentClass would count for. Lack of owl:equivalentClass would count against.

The example was intended to be abstract. I don't know whether these ontologies actually recognize each other in this way or not.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Erik Hetzner
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:56 AM
To: public-lld
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition

Hi Jeff,

I am about to sign off here, because I do no think that we are going
to convince each other, & I imagine list members are getting bored. :)
I agree that book is not the clearest concept; the point was that
bibo:Book and book/vocab#Book have the same semantic meaning AND it is
very easy to imagine defining a resource which has both types. Whether
or not FRBR is a better model (I think it is) doesn’t seem relevant.

But one final comment:

At Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:03:27 -0400, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> […]
>
> Jeff: 
> 
> <http://example.org/bibo:Book/1> a bibo:Book .
> <http://example.org/frbr:Manifestation/1> a frbr:Manifestation .
> <http://example.org/bibo:Book/1> owl:sameAs
> <http://example.org/frbr:Manifestation/1> .

I assume this is not your actual position, since it was owl:sameAs
that stared this whole thing.

best, Erik

Received on Friday, 9 July 2010 16:04:21 UTC