Re: Open Library and RDF

It's not my specialist area, so please ignore this comment if it's not 
relevant, but I wonder whether FRBRoo[1] might be a useful ingredient in 
this modelling exercise.

Richard

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FRBRoo
In message <020a01cb279e$becb71f4$d71dae84@oa.oclc.org>, "Young,Jeff 
(OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> writes
>Oops. Sorry. I should have looked closer at my UML. It's been awhile since
>I did this. The way I modeled it, the highest level class is "Entity" with
>"Group1", "Group2", and "Group3" as subclasses. This was the only way I
>could make sense of it and I admit it is my interpretation. Still, though,
>I think it makes for much simpler OWL and would allow us to use real FRBR
>attribute and relationship names. Would examples help?
>
>Jeff
>
>Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3016 - Release Date: 
>07/19/10 19:36:00

-- 
Richard Light

Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 07:11:47 UTC