- From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:14:04 +0100
- To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Er, I guess a simpler way to say this is:
If bibo:Book or bibo:Article or dct:BibliographicResource are
inherently disjoint with FRBR (since they do not constrain you from
violating FRBR rules), the ov:commonThing properties let you express
FRBR relationships on these resources without making your reasoner
implode in a puff of logic.
-Ross.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com> wrote:
> 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 23:14:33 UTC