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

Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue.fig@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:18:57 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTim43z7VKgftbhUq6_3Ru-GqXpikTtwDGu3PNRFp@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
We have about the same issue with BnF bibliographic data.
RDA allows to express a direct relationship between a Manifestation
and a Work using "Work Manifested
"(http://RDVocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/workManifested). It doesn't
solve all issues (the Expression still exists and we need a way to
describe it) but it seems a pragmatic approach to me.


On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I have a dilemma which I think is fairly common. I have bibliographic data
> that does not follow the FRBR group 1 divisions (work, expression,
> manifestation, item). These are entries in the Open Library database, which
> has two levels rather than four: Work, and Everything Else. (OCLC's WorldCat
> appears to have the same division.) I want to create a relationship between
> the Work and the Everything Else entity (using their respective
> identifiers).
> As defined, FRBR only allows relationships from Expression to Work, and
> Manifestation to Expression. (I will gloss over Item because there is little
> item-level information in the records I am concerned with.) What I need,
> however, is a relationship between a Manifestation (with some Expression
> information) and a Work. The same Expression information may be found in
> more than one bibliographic entry so there is no true Expression entity that
> is defined in the data.
> I have often seen pre-FRBR bibliographic data coded as "Manifestation" when
> in fact the data has elements that FRBR would associate with Work,
> Expression and Manifestation. This brings up more than one question (mainly:
> what does calling a bibliographic entity a Manifestation mean if there is no
> "Manifests" relationship? -- In other words, are the FRBR group 1 entities
> things, relationships, or both?), but on a practical level it seems that we
> will need to work with bibliographic data that either is not modeled as FRBR
> entities, or that models a variation on these entities. I'm thinking that
> some new classes and some new relationships may be needed to accommodate
> this.
> Does anyone have ideas about the best way to go about this?
> kc
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 19:19:31 UTC

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