RE: is FRBR relevant?

I started a draft this morning, but I'm on vacation this week. I'll
sneak in what I can. I think a Linked Data perspective has something
useful to add.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:27 AM
> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
> 
> On 8/13/10 4:25 PM, Jon Phipps wrote:
> > *From:* public-xg-lld-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Emmanuelle
> Bermes
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 13, 2010 5:07 AM
> > *To:* Karen Coyle
> > *Cc:* public-xg-lld@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Re: is FRBR relevant?
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't it be useful if the group could
> > - provide a specific use case for subject search (which was the
> > beginning of this thread)
> > - identify the terminology gaps between library world and SemWeb
> world
> > (I think that this work on terminology is something that we hadn't
> > identified per se, but I'm currently at IFLA and I hear a lot about
> > records, metadata, elements and sub-elements, properties, concepts,
> > ontologies, etc. all used in a very mixed up and not precise way...
)
> >
> > +1
> >
> 
> 
> Agreed to both!
> I guess subject search will naturally appear in the use cases. There
> were already quite a few of them in the SKOS uses cases [1], which are
> very close to library concerns.
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-ucr/
>

Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:31:42 UTC