RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

Ross,

 

I don't know the answer, but maybe we can pull together a few clues. In
the FRBR Final Report, look at Table 5.3 Expression-to-Expression
Relationships. From that, it seems pretty certain that "book" + language
are factors but only secondarily. Note the column named "Autonomous
Expressions".

 

http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm

 

What if we thought of these as subclasses of Expression that we could
then use to help draw the line?

 

Jeff

 

From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of
Ross Singer
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:46 PM
To: Richard Light
Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

 

One thing I want to clear up, I'm not disputing creating resources
without all of the information available up front.  What I am asking is,
how much is needed to accurately create an Expression?

If what we have is a record type (BKS) and language of publication (en),
is this enough information to accurately create an Expression and start
associating Manifestations to it?  I'll table for the moment my
questions about whether or not this is useful, focusing instead what
exactly is needed to create an (accurate) Expression from legacy MARC
and what else we might expect to commonly see in a typical MARC record
to help draw upon.

The LC FRBR Display Tool
(http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html#table) only
mentions record type and publication language, but surely this isn't
enough, right?  This: http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328 isn't describing the
same expression as this: http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632, correct?

-Ross.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Richard Light
<richard@light.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In message
<52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB715A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>,
"Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> writes

	 

	
	Inferencing aside, having half the story for an Expression or
Work is
	still enough to justify identifying these individuals. I
wouldn't
	consider them any less "real" than their fully described
counterparts.
	UUIDs are free. This allows downstream agents to assert
owl:sameAs with
	another individual and thus fill in more of the story on both
sides.
	(As mere mortals, we'll never ever have "the full story" on
anything.)

 

I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a few days now ...

I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL, and
thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its
properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum
world, where information about an entity of interest (person, place,
event, ...) will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This shouldn't
stop us from asserting what we _do_ know (or believe).

As a matter of interest, where does FRBRoo
(http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_inro.html) come into this discussion?

Richard
--
Richard Light



Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/

shared innovation(tm)



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.

Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg, VA
22408, United States of America.