[open-bibliography] More verbs. Electronic 'Items' (Yes, another FRBR thread)

Thu Jul 8 14:14:44 UTC 2010

Thanks - I wasn't quite clear in hindsight. These predicates apply to
the Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item hierarchy and have tight
range and domain constraints as prescribed by the FRBR model.

I was talking about realining or adding to the predicates when you take
into consideration that some Expression-level predicates are arguably
Work level relationships (or should be): eg translations and so on. For
example, changing the range+domain of
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/1635.html
(hasATranslation) from Expression to perhaps a union of Expression and
Work? or simply from E -> E to W -> W?

(predicate codified into RDF here:
http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html#translation)

Do we have a list of relationships where the range and domain need to be
loosened, based on previous discussions? Will we require more
relationships to describe the Works properly?

Ben

On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 06:41 -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Verbs can be found at:
> 
> http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html
> 
> http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/5.html
> 
> kc
> 
> Quoting Benjamin O'Steen <bosteen at gmail.com>:
> 
> >
> > Two hopefully quick points:
> >
> > After the massive FRBR thread, I came away with the notion that Work and
> > Expression are redundant levels, and that by redrawing the lines between
> > the layers and adding in more verbs we could better serve the aim of
> > FRBR'ising the records.
> >
> > So... where are the verbs? I've been moving house etc so haven't
> > followed the threads as close as I'd like, but I do think this is a
> > perfect opportunity to collaborate on a list of verbs that interrelates
> > the classes that remain - the new 'Work', 'Manifestation' and 'Item'
> >
> > Shall we kick off an etherpad for this? or has someone already started
> > collating predicates and I am just behind the times?
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > Electronic Items
> >
> > Item doesn't make an awful lot of sense with regards electronics or
> > born-digital items. I think that we might broaden the schema a little
> > here to allow something like an OAI-ORE Aggregation here instead of an
> > Item. Would it be preferable to subclass it as 'DigitalItem' or to use
> > it unaltered?
> >
> > This would enable us to describe whatever granularity of digital item we
> > want or are able to using RDF relationships.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > PS forgive me if I have just summarised previous conversations - I am
> > catching up!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-bibliography mailing list
> > open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
> >
> 
> 
> 