Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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.

Karen, we've also run into this problem.  The way we've worked around
it, generally, is to basically consider the Expression "optional" (in
fact, at this stage, we don't even mess with it - its appearance in
the MARC records is just too spotty to account for at this pass) and
instead focus on the Manifestation and the Work.

Since, as you point out, there's no FRBR relationship between the two,
we've been using dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf to make the link
directly between W and M.

It's not the ideal from a FRBR perspective, I realize, but it's
pragmatic from a "we go to RDF with the data we have, not the data we
want" point of view.  Once things are established and we can figure
out what the Expressions are (if ever!), then we can go back and
associate them, but we at least have the link there now until
something better comes along.

Of course, Emmanuelle's suggestion
(http://rdvocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/workManifested) is even
better (or, at any rate, more semantically explicit) making me think
I'll put in a recommendation that we move towards it (and start using
it for my own projects).

-Ross.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those
> of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message
> and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
> the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
> please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
> e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 14:06:17 UTC