RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

Jeff and others
 
The assumption that "Expression will always be a twin to Work" is practically
correct.
 
FRBR gives cardinality restrictions on the WEMI "chain":
 
An Item is an exemplar of one-and-only-one Manifestation;
A Manifestation is an embodiment of one-or-more-than-one (i.e. at-least-one)
Expression;
An Expression is a realization of one-and-only-one Work.
 
There are no such restrictions in the inverse direction, so a Work does not need
to have an Expression, etc. However, I suspect that expressionless Works will be
rare or short-lived; e.g. "lost" Works for which only a brief reference such as
author and title are known, or Works yet to be expressed but cited in publisher
announcements.
 
Cheers
 
Gordon

 

On 15 September 2010 at 17:28 "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> 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:
>
> http://example.org/expression/45678 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.
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > 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) <jyoung@oclc.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Another solution would be to identify the expression as a hash on
> the
> > > work URI. For example:
> > >
> > > <http://example.org/work/12345> a frbr:Work .
> > > <http://example.org/work/12345/#frbr:Expression> a frbr:Expression .
> > > <http://example.org/manifestation/98765> 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.
>
>
>