- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:14:56 -0700
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Oddly, I didn't get James' post... so I'll answer it on Jeff's... On 6/30/13 3:36 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >> >> As a result, schemabibex can exist not only *long* before BIBFRAME >> will, but it can also start being used very quickly and if it is well >> done, has the potential to become very popular and widespread. Jim, schemabibex is the name of the group looking to extend schema.org for bibliographic data. schema.org already exists, is already being used, AND has most of what you would need to mark up a web page that has information about books, movies and recorded music. It isn't a substitute for BIBFRAME by any means, in part because it isn't a library standard. It >> seems to me that relating all of that to FRBR can only hinder the >> adoption. I totally agree. I even question the Work/Instance breakdown of BIBFRAME. I think that people are confusing the concept of "work" with the definition of Work in FRBR and BIBFRAME. You can have a concept of "work" without creating an artificial division where descriptions of actual books can't have subject headings because that's in the "work record." A book HAS an author and subjects and an ISBN and a publisher -- altogether. The concept of a work doesn't take some of those away from the real book (or movie or whatever). >> >> Anyway, BIBFRAME itself is already overthrowing the FRBR data model, >> in favor of instance and work, or what I have always called >> description and headings. Actually, I don't think that's the criterion for the division. There are some headings in bf:Instance, and some description in bf:Work. The separation has been defined as "abstract vs. concrete" in the BIBFRAME documentation. Personally I think that "description and headings" makes sense, but that's not how FRBR approached it, as far as I can ascertain. kc >> >> It just seems to me that after schemabibex is adopted, it will 1) >> exist, and 2) be easy to implement. Therefore it should be used quite >> widely. BIBFRAME will have to adapt to schemabibex. >> >> -- >> *James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com >> *First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ >> *First Thus Facebook Page* https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus >> *Cooperative Cataloging Rules* >> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/ >> *Cataloging Matters Podcasts* >> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 01:15:28 UTC