- From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:02:31 +0100
- To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de> wrote: > > { ?X ov:commonManifestation ?Y } > > => # implies one of the following holds: > > { ?X a frbr:Manifestation . ?Y a frbr:Manifestation . ?X owl:sameAs ?Y } > OR > { ?X a frbr:Manifestation . ?Y a frbr:Item . ?Y frbr:exemplarOf ?X } > OR > { ?X a frbr:Item . ?Y a frbr:Manifestation . ?Y frbr:exemplar ?X } > OR > { ?X a frbr:Item; frbr:exemplarOf ?Z . > ?Y a frbr:Item; frbr:exemplarOf ?Z . > ?Z a frbr:Manifestation . } > No, Karen's interpretation is correct. These properties exist because FRBR is *so* rigid. If you have a frbr:Manifestation, it cannot have a dct:creator (it could, I think, have a rda:statementOfResponsibility at most). If you have a dct:creator, in theory, the resource has some properties of a frbr:Work (I think dct:subject might also be at the Work level). So, if you had a resource like: <http://example.org/myBook> a <bibo:Book> <dct:title> My Example Book ; <dct:subject> <http://example.org/subjects/1> ; <dct:creator> <http://example.org/identities/1>; <bibo:isbn10> 123456789X ; <dct:language> <http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/languages/eng#language> . you have references to a Work (via the creator and subjects), Expression (via the language), and Manifestation (via the isbn10). Since frbr:Work, frbr:Expression, and frbr:Manifestation are all disjoint with each other, <http://example.org/myBook> cannot be typed any of these things (since it contains properties from all of these). ov:commonThing <otherThing> just means that <otherThing> shares a common frbr:Entity as <http://example.org/myBook>, but it doesn't entail anything (except the inverse, <http://example.org/myBook> shares a common frbr:Entity as <otherThing>). I think the key to understanding this is in thinking about how unforgiving FRBR is ontologically. Does that clear more up? -Ross. > I can think of "share the same Work/Expression/Manifestation", but what does > "share the same Item" mean? I bet that "A and B share the same FOO" must be > expressable in RDF as > > <A> ?r _:x . <B> ?r _:x . _:x a <FOO> . > > So what about the relation ?r. > >> Hopefully, that will clear it up a little better. > > I'd better rename the properties to something like ov:sharesWorkWith or > ov:hasSameWorkAs. The label "commonWork" looks more like "is common work of" > which led me doubt. > > Jakob > > -- > Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich > Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network > Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany > +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de > >
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 23:03:01 UTC