[open-bibliography] FRBR examples

[William Waites]

On 10-05-27 15:40, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
>
> Such relationships should be described by some kind of extension, if
> at all. Describing relationships like this semantically is difficult
> and of limited value for the effort and complexity required.
>

I strongly disagree about the "limited value" part. If one is concerned
about running a
library that might be true. If one is concerned with mapping
researchers' knowledge
about works and writers in their fields then it goes right to the core
of the project.

It is still hard though

> If I want to read a copy of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, then
> any copy in a language I speak is fine. An audio book could/should be
> considered as just-another-manifestation, but a film or audio drama is
> just a related work. Relationships between different works is an
> entire rabbit hole of its own which is not essential to providing a
> useful model. It can be added to a working model later, probably with
> different datasets requiring different ways of modelling such things.

This goes back to my original question. Rephrased, is FRBR a suitable
working model
for people to hang their more elaborate statements off of? Or is it
confusing enough that
people won't be able to consistently identify which subjects and objects
they mean?

My feeling at this point is to go with a much flattened
Work-Manifestation model and
freely create new Works where needed (e.g. translations) with a
predicate like
derivedFrom or a sub-predicate like translationOf as needed.

Cheers,
-w

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