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

[Karen Coyle]

I agree that if we do not want to use FRBR it would be better to  
create another model rather than try to create FRBR/prime. I would  
rather see a unified bibliographic record (not divided into WEMI) and  
a set of agents. I'm not sure what to do about subjects because I  
assume that ANYTHING can be a subject, so subject-ness is a  
relationship, not an entity. That would leave it open for you to pull  
in any property in the linked data space as a subject.

FRBR basically solidifies the traditional library catalog card view,  
which may be why so many of us are having a hard time with it.

kc

Quoting William Waites <william.waites at okfn.org>:

> On 10-07-08 13:33, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Quoting Benjamin O'Steen <bosteen at gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> I'm still not clear on what you are trying to do, but perhaps this helps:
>>
>> ... in the FRBR document "is expression of" is a predicate that
>> relates an expression to a Work. Between each of the four Group 1
>> entities there appears to be a single relationship:
>>   - is expression of (has expression)  E <-> Work
>>   - is manifestation of (has manifestation) M <-> E
>>   - is item of (has item) I <-> M
>>
>> As for translations, Work is an abstract, until it is expressed, so
>> only the Expression can be translated, not the Work. (That's the FRBR
>> logic, I'm not necessarily defending it.)
>
> I think Ben is suggesting taking some inspiration from FRBR,
> but ditching its Expression class and defining more predicates.
>
> One way of doing this that is nice and reuseful is to use the
> existing FRBR classes with different relationship logic and
> reuse FRBR predicates where possible. The predicates embed
> FRBR relationship logic in their constraints so they would have
> to be changed to support our logic (FRBR absent Expression).
>
> I think it is best to define classes in a new vocabulary rather
> than try to shoehorn a different conceptual model into FRBR --
> see [0] which is very provisional and will try to follow the
> consensus on the wiki page.
>
> 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/
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet