RE: Open Library and RDF

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


>
> There seems to be a flaw in your argument. "Subject" is not an alias for
> frbr:Group3. Instead, frbr:Group3 is related to frbr:Work by
> frbr:isTheSubjectOf and inversely frbr:hasAsSubject. The attached UML
> class diagram should help make this clearer (note the section numbers).
> This should mean that frbr:Place could reasonably be used as the range
> for frbr:placeOfPublication.


So you are saying that the FRBR definition of the entity doesn't limit  
it to use in a subject relationship? Here's what the FRBR document  
says (p. 29):

"For the purposes of this study places are treated as entities only to  
the extent that they are the subject of a work (e.g., the subject of a  
map or atlas, or of a travel guide, etc.)."

I'm not exactly sure what "for the purposes of this study" actually  
means in terms of the entity definitions, but I don't think that FRBR  
includes a relationship that would allow you to relate a FRBR place  
entity to a manifestation as the place where the manifestation was  
published/manufactured. That doesn't mean that one couldn't be  
created, and I do think we need to flesh out FRBR to include other  
relationships (and perhaps even other entities). But it's not there  
today. And experience that we've had in interacting with both the RDA  
developers and the FRBR developers is that they feel strongly about  
the completeness of their model are not happy with the idea of anyone  
extending the entities and relationships that they have defined. It  
will probably have to be done in a different namespace and under  
different auspices. (Ditto for the creation of classes for the FRBR  
groups and other FR entities. It would be great to hear WHY this is,  
but there is no place where public discussion takes place on this  
topic.)

Also note that we won't really know how group 3 entities and  
relationships are defined in relation to the other frbr entities until  
FRSAD comes out with its final report. FRBR is very vague on Group 3,  
as is RDA. But FRSAD appears to be defining few relationships:

The FRSAD model establishes two sets of relationships:
(1) Relationships between different types of entities: WORK-THEMA and  
THEMA-NOMEN.
These are the primary relationships and are illustrated in Chapter 5
when the entities are presented.
(2) Relationships between entities of the same type: THEMA-THEMA and
NOMEN-NOMEN.

Between works and subjects there are only two: has as subject, is  
subject of. That may be enough... but I haven't thought about it in  
any depth.

kc



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

Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 22:57:20 UTC