RE: goals wrt FRBR/RDA (was Re: Works and instances)

Jodi

 

Comments inline .

 

Cheers

 

Gordon

 

From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org] 
Sent: 07 January 2013 17:25
To: Gordon Dunsire
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: goals wrt FRBR/RDA (was Re: Works and instances)

 

 

On 7 Jan 2013, at 08:08, Gordon Dunsire wrote:

Does this provide a way forward for schema.org to interoperate with
FRBR/RDA?

 

Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic, but I don't think I'd state this as a goal
-- at least not directly.

 

GD: As Richard said "If we cannot demonstrate how you would publish your
data using [extended] Schema.org, that is currently in
FRBR/RDA/Marc/ISBD/etc., we will not have completed our mission."

 

Rather, I'd ask: 

- What qualities of library and bibliographic data are needed for search
engines to serve endusers?

- How does FRBR/RDA promote these qualities? What qualities of the data
needs to be preserved?

 

GD: By "qualities", do you mean attributes and relationships? I think we
have to assume that FRBR/RDA promotes those attributes and relationships
(i.e. provide a semantic model) that serve endusers, given that FRBR is
focussed on user tasks, and we should give credit to the international
processes that determined those attributes and relationships. So I would say
that we know what qualities serve endusers in bibliographic resource
discovery systems; the question is to what extent search engines support
them and, most importantly, to what extent "amateur" cataloguers (and,
indeed, inference engines) can supply the bibliographic data.

 

To me, going back to use cases would really help. If anybody has time to
translate the problems/solutions into specifics, with our use cases, I think
that would bring us forward.

 

We currently have a number of use cases here:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases

Among them are to describe a FRBR Item and a FRBR Manifestation:

.
<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases#Use_case:_Describe_a
_FRBR_Item_.28e.g._a_single_identifiable_book.29> 1.4 Use case: Describe a
FRBR Item (e.g. a single identifiable book)

.
<http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases#Use_case:_Describe_a
_FRBR_Manifestation> 1.5 Use case: Describe a FRBR Manifestation

 

Another way to ask my question, is if we use isbd:hasExpression and
isbd:hasItem [1], does that address these problems? If so, then it's a way
forward.

 

GD: The two isbd properties exist only in my head at the moment. The problem
of interoperating data based on FRBR WEMI with data based on "dumber",
high-level models based on Resource/CreativeWork is generic (with ISBD,
Schema, and DCT as the most prominent examples). So it would be good to get
a general solution.

 

Gordon, if this sounds dense it's probably because I need more context on
the ISBD Review Group's work--beyond ISBD identifiers they appear to have
envisioned FRBR-ER identifiers which are news to me.

 

The context of the Review Group's proposed work is interoperability of IFLA
bibliographic standards, which include ISBD and FRBR/FRAD/FRSAD. The Group
is also working with JSC/RDA on alignments between ISBD and RDA elements and
semantic mappings between them, and between ISBD and RDA content and carrier
designators. More information can be found on the IFLA and JSC websites, but
let me know if you have further questions J

 

-Jodi

 

[1] 

isbd:hasExpression rdfs:label "has expression" ;

rdfs:domain isbd:C2001 ;

rdfs:range frbrer:C1002 .

frbrer:C1002 rdfs:label "Expression" .

 

isbd:hasItem rdfs:label "has item" ;

rdfs:domain isbd:C2001 ;

rdfs:range frbrer:C1004 .

frbrer:C1004 rdfs:label "Item" .

 

-Jodi