[open-bibliography] Proposed definition for /book/book

[William Waites]

On 10-07-01 07:24, Owen Stephens wrote:
>
> Agreed that book is not an unambiguous term even in daily usage, and
> also agreed that most people find it helpful to think about 'books'
> and dropping the term would be more confusing.
>
> Probably my main concern is (as noted in my previous mail) that the
> first part of the definition 'A book is a written work or a collection
> of written works in book form.', is contradicted by other parts of the
> definition.

One of the nice things about FRBR is it is not limited to Works
in book form -- it can include musical recordings, paintings,
and other things that are not normally considered to be books
and would be confusing if they were called books. I think that
Work is sufficiently clear and that it is not unnatural for people
to think of books as works.

Beyond that, if we want to get deeper into using OWL perhaps
it is appropriate to do something like,

:Work a owl:Class .
:Book owl:subClassOf :Work .
:Performance owl:subClassOf :Work .
:Painting owl:subClassOf :Work .

Cheers,
-w

-- 
William Waites           <william.waites at okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
		http://ordf.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20100701/f40ef127/attachment-0001.html>