Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Jon Phipps <> wrote:
> Karen,
> This might be a bit radical, but what would happen to your model if,
> rather than thinking of the FRBR entities as 'entities', you thought of
> them as simply classifications/groupings of the properties describing a
> single bibliographic resource -- an item? What would it look like if you
> simply described an item with all of the properties available to you in
> your data, and then organized those properties into FRBRish categories,
> without worrying about inheritance or entity relationships or class
> definition or anything else? Could you then declare those
> categorizations to be classes of 'things' that bear some definable
> relationship to each other and to the more formal FRBR entities?
> Just curious.

I've been tempted by this kind of design too.

I tend to see FRBR as a source of functional requirements, rather than
of a direct OO class model to use in RDF.
might be of interest here...



Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 20:28:34 UTC