[openbiblio-dev] Bibliographic models in RDF

[Rufus Pollock]

On 16 September 2010 15:48, Ben O'Steen <bosteen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've written a quick blog post outlining three different models for
> holding the same bibliographic information in RDF -
> http://openbiblio.net/2010/09/10/bibliographic-models-in-rdf/

I've just posted a comment which I reproduce here for those not
following the site:

<quote>
I think it is very likely we don’t need the full FRBR conception. The
key thing is to describe the ‘actual’ objects (which I think
correspond to FRBR Manifestations) and to be able to link them to a
‘Work/Ideal’ object which acts as a way of pulling together the many
different instances of the approximately the same thing (and we can
argue later as to whether the 1st edition versus 2nd edition of a book
qualifies as a new Work/Ideal — we all agree that a 2nd printing (with
a new isbn) does not …).

Just maybe we’ll want an FRBR ‘Item’ to represent the fact we have
multiple physical copies of something but this is far down the list —
if it will be needed at all.

Lastly I’d request more examples if possible:) — e.g. could we have a
standard fiction title (Harry Potter would be good because we have
lots of printings, different editions, translations etc).
</quote>

> Bruce D'Arcus points out that the model should suit the purpose in a
> comment he left, and I do agree. However, my usecase is reuse by the
> wider community.
>
> Would a FRBR-like output be of most use, as long as real URIs are given
> to the volume/issue level nodes?
>
> Would multiple representations be confusing or useful? eg for each
> record/work, there can be a dereference-able URI for a bibo graph, a
> frbr/fabio graph and even a dc/prism graph for that work.

I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be and it would seem to
involve significant extra work.

Rufus
-- 
Open Knowledge Foundation
Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/