- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:49:41 +0100
- To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org, Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
On 31 October 2011 16:17, Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de> wrote: > On 30.10.2011 20:07, Tom Baker wrote: > >> By "models", do you mean formal representations of the models in RDF, >> e.g.: >> http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/frbrer.rdf - FRBRer >> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/FRBR1.0.1.rdfs - FRBRoo >> http://vocab.org/frbr/core.rdf - Ian Davis >> >> Or do you mean the texts on which representations are based, e.g.: >> http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.pdf = >> http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm - FRBRer >> o - FRBRoo >> http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html - Ian Davis >> -- based on http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm ?? > > That's splitting hairs. The only relevant representation of FRBR in RDF is > http://vocab.org/frbr/ anyway. It was the first, it is documented best and > any average developer will find this namespace, if looking for FRBR. > Everything else, explicitly this thread, is academic ivory tower talk. I think that's a little unfair. There is certainly interest (from practitioners and implementors) in having a more official FRBR-based approach. Ian's was a great start to get things going, but since libraries can tend towards being conservative, having something more 'blessed' could help with adoption. FRBRoo I do find disappointingly complex; when I first heard of it, I hoped it would be simpler than FRBR, by defining individual works, manifestations and items as classes. But it is a rather intricate representation. > If you prefer non-disjoint FRBR concepts Work, Expression, Manifestation, and > Item, just ask Ian Davis to remove this constraint. I asked Ian last week. He was unwilling to remove those rules. > Personally I would > appreciate this modification, but the world will not collapse, if I just use > the FRBR ontology without respecting the disjointedness constraint. So, you're saying all the others are no good, and that you're going to continue using a vocabulary which forces you to contradict yourself with every assertion? I hope we can find some better solution... cheers, Dan > 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 Monday, 31 October 2011 20:50:23 UTC