- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:11:50 -0400
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:05:21PM -0400, Ross Singer wrote: > My personal opinion is that any RDF representation of FRBR, owing to > RDF's open world assumption, should be able to account for any entity > being missing from the initial point of modeling -- if all you "know" > about is the Item and the Work (or Expression or whatever), then we > should be able to go with that and patch in the blank holes later. Out of last week's thread on FRBR, I think this is the key point. If we try to distill general issues in Pittsburgh, this should be one of them. Tom -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 21:12:36 UTC