RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

The counter argument is that the dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf solution
isn't documented anywhere and other solutions are plausible. Without a
systematic connection, SPARQL connections between Work and Manifestation
become a guessing game.

The question is, how much grief will the RDF designer get for wanting to
coin a new 303 URI? If the framework is flexible, then go ahead and have
them coin a 303 URI for Expression: a frbr:Expression .

My suggestion of using a hash assumes that Expression will always be a
twin to Work and is easily piggybacked on it without fighting for
infrastructure support. If and when Expressions deserve 303 URIs, the
old hash URIs can migrate to the 303 URI using owl:sameAs.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf
> Ross Singer
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:13 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Karen Coyle; public-lld
> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <>
> wrote:
> > Another solution would be to identify the expression as a hash on
> > work URI. For example:
> >
> > <> a frbr:Work .
> > <> a frbr:Expression .
> > <> a frbr:Manifestation .
> >
> This would work, sure.  The only downside I see is that it would
> require reconciliation and maintenance should a real Expression
> eventually come along.
> Personally, I think sacrificing the purity of FRBR (via
> rda:workManifested, etc. with no Expression declared) would be a more
> desirable alternative than the potential costs associated with
> shimming in some Fauxpression just to meet the (unrealistic, frankly)
> requirements of a(n ivory tower-esque) data model.
> Honestly, does the internet break, do libraries spontaneously combust,
> does data turn into meaningless gibberish all because somebody left
> out an Expression resource?
> -Ross.

Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 15:29:26 UTC