Re: is FRBR relevant?

Hi, Jeff (& all),

Ok, now I *start* to understand what you're getting at. 

Do you imagine an agent using that subject? Among humans, only catalogers, researchers, and reference librarians are likely to seach for this subject heading, I think.*
> "has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"


I think what you're saying, though, is "since we've cataloged, wouldn't it be great to expose the data" -- and that FRBR's "has as subject" gives a way to do this.

I still haven't figured out why you're asking "is FRBR relevant?" (i.e. in the subject line). 

Maybe your concern is that authority control should give us identifiers not just uniform headings? I guess Karen's more recent post might be relevant to this thread:
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2009/08/frsad.html

I think you're probably getting at something important, but I'm still not quite sure what it is.

-Jodi

PS-Any quick intro to suggest for FRSAD? Not up to speed there. I've added the draft report to my queue:
http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/report090623.pdf


On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:14, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:

> Karen,
> 
> Sorry that I raised the issue rhetorically. An explanation would be
> better.
> 
> The issue is precision and recall
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall> of my Google search:
> 
> "has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"
> 
> Note that the "has as subject" relationship is straight from FRBR and
> "World War, 1939-1945" is straight from LCSH.
> 
> My Google search returned a grand total of 2 hits (3 now that Google
> indexed this thread). Now imagine a Web-accessible library catalog with
> an HTTP URI for each FRBR Work something like this:
> 
> http://example.org/work/12345/
> 
> Content-negotiation for HTML (the default) could include markup
> something like:
> 
> <tr>
> <th>has as subject</th>
> <td>
> <a
> href="http://example.org/work/?frbr:hasAsSubject=http%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov
> %2Fauthorities%2Fsh85148273%23concept">World War, 1939-1945</a>
> </td>
> </tr>
> Etc.
> 
> The RDF equivalent could be added as RDFa or negotiated from the URI.
> Eventually, Google would index these work pages and my search wouldn't
> be so disappointing. The same principles apply throughout FRBR.
> 
> Jeff
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 2:32 PM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
>> 
>> Jeff, I don't know what you were expecting when you did this search,
>> therefore why you find it to be disappointing. Perhaps you can
> explain?
>> 
>> kc
>> 
>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> 
>>> I've been looking at the relationship between FRBR and FRSAD over
> the
>>> past week.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> http://www.ifla.org/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records
>>> 
>>> http://www.ifla.org/node/1297
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The fundamental question of FRSAD revolves around the range on
> FRBR's
>>> "has as subject" relationship between Work and other things. One
>> example
>>> given in the report revolves around the LCSH heading "World War,
>>> 1939-1945", so I typed this query into Google:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why am I disappointed?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> Jeffrey A. Young
>>> Software Architect
>>> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
>>> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
>>> 6565 Kilgour Place
>>> Dublin, OH 43017-3395
>>> www.oclc.org <http://www.oclc.org>
>>> 
>>> Voice: 614-764-4342
>>> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
>>> Fax: 614-718-7477
>>> Email: jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
> 
> 
>