Re: Content vs. Carrier (was: RE: [open-bibliography] MARC Codes for Forms of Musical Composition)

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:


> That’s a better name, but it’s still far from being useful for the   
> masses. Even less usefully, RDA appears to ignore the “Group N   
> Entity” abstractions completely:
>
>
>
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/14.html

I don't think that it is RDA that ignores the "group" level in FRBR --  
I believe that it is FRBR that does so. (And Gordon should be able to  
enlighten us on this since he is the one defining FRBR in RDF for  
IFLA.)[1] Quite honestly,if it was intended that that 3 FRBR groups be  
part of the model, I suspect they would have been given better names  
than "group 1, group 2, and group 3." The metadata registry caught  
"heck" for adding "Agent" as a generalization of Group 2, even though  
the purpose was to bring together a number of properties that are  
repeated for each group 2 entity type. (e.g. cataloger note about the  
person, cataloger note about the corporate body...).

[1] http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/5.html

>
>
>
> FRBR is a technical model and at the risk of repeating old arguments  
>  I believe classes and individuals should to be linked to/from other  
>  models rather than conflating their identities.  To illustrate, I   
> don’t think that “CatalogingRecord” is a bad class to start creating  
>  Linked Data from. We don’t need to redesign cataloging databases  
> and  systems to produce Linked Data. Imagine a lightweight “library”  
>  ontology to help back up these examples involving 2 legitimate   
> CatalogingRecords (eng, ger) that describe a “single”   
> Work/Expression/Manifestation/Book:

I'm unclear here why you are creating records. It seems that you are  
using the catalog document as your focus rather than the object of the  
catalog document. Can you explain better your use case for this kind  
of approach?

Thanks,
kc



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

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 21:57:28 UTC