- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:18:50 -0700
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org>
Jon Phipps: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org> 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 > Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> > 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. Me, three, I have thought about it this way, but I can't figure out how to make it work on a real bibliographic system. Essentially, this is what we have today with MARC21 records (and ISBD records, I believe). All of the data describing either an item or a manifestation is created as a single set. Then say that you want to present a view to your users that shows them works, and all of the expressions of those works. (There are real reasons for presenting a frbr:work view, BTW, so this is more than hypothetical.) This MAY be possible if you have in each bibliographic description (this is from the 2008 FRBR doc, not the registered FRBRer) the same: title of the work form of work date of the work other distinguishing characteristic intended termination intended audience context for the work medium of performance (musical work) numeric designation (musical work) key (musical work) coordinates (cartographic work) equinox (cartographic work) because this is what identifies a frbr:work. This is how we will discover "workness" in bibliographic data that doesn't have FRBR entities defined. Even if most of these are expressed with URIs, I have concerns about the efficiency of making this decision for each search and display. But the bigger issue, to me, is how you will use a loosely organized set of properties to express: somethingA is an adaptation of somethingB somethingX is a translation of somethingY What will identify these somethingS such that these relationships can be made? It's that question that always brings me to a halt. 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 21:19:25 UTC