- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:30:35 -0800
- To: "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>
- Cc: "public-lld@w3.org" <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>: > I basically agree, but want to point out that FRBR's WEMI are not > strictly hierarchical but rather a network graph (don't forget about > the many to many relationships for the WEMI - it's not just one to > one or one to many or many to one - there are also many to many). > I think this is a definitional distinction that doesn't change the underlying problem, which is that WEMI are not *things* in the E-R sense, but they are a single thing that has been broken into _dependent parts_. That is why it is extremely hard to model them, either in a semantic web sense or in something like a graph or topic-like map. In that sense, Group 1 of FRBR is very different from Groups 2 and 3 which have as their classes a set of independent things, each of which is complete in itself. I don't know of an analogous situation so I can't give an analogy... but there's something ... interesting ... about an entity that can have relationships (like the Manifestation having a relationship to a series) even though that first entity is unable to stand alone. I haven't seen any discussion of "dependent things" in any semantic web community arenas, so I don't know if this is a known "case" or not. I just know that I struggle with it greatly. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 14:31:10 UTC