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

Yes they have, from what is visible in BIBFRAME so far ­ hardly surprising
when one of the main drivers of their initiative is to be able to Œshare
data with the web¹.

~Richard.


On 09/01/2013 05:05, "Shlomo Sanders" <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>
wrote:

> Small reminder. Seems that LC has moved off the WEMI model.
> What I heard, was that was due too it's complexity.
> 
> We need to keep it simple, especially if our target audience is normal people.
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 19:25, "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 7 Jan 2013, at 08:08, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>>> Does this provide a way forward for schema.org <http://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.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> 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:
>> * 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_Item_.28e.g._a_single_identifiable_book.29>
>> * 1.5 Use case: Describe a FRBR Manifestation
>> <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases#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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> -Jodi
>> 
>> [1] 
>> isbd:hasExpression rdfs:label "has expression" ;
>> rdfs:domain isbd:C2001 ;
>> rdfs:range frbrer:C1002 .
>> frbrer:C1002 rdfs:label ³Expression² .
>>  
>> isbd:hasItem rdfs:label "has item" ;
>> rdfs:domain isbd:C2001 ;
>> rdfs:range frbrer:C1004 .
>> frbrer:C1004 rdfs:label ³Item² .
>> 
>> -Jodi
>