About the model: Question 18

December 2, 2007 comment from Bruce D’Arcus: …Also, there’s a general principle in RDF that favors reuse and extension over reinvention. There shouldn’t be a need for anyone to invent another frbr:Work, frbr:expression, frbr:Person, etc. You can reuse them, including subclassing them (likewise with properties). …

 December 4, 2007 comment from Martha:  The fact that FRBR maps nearly all of the bibliographic description to manifestation and that the tables at the back of FRBR do not actually correspond to the entity definitions in the text makes me reluctant to simply reuse frbr:work.

 Question: would using the FRBR entities as defined in Bruce’s FRBR/RDF model imply using the FRBR tables that link all elements of the bibliographic description to manifestation?

 December 11, 2007 posting to NGC4LIB list by Jonathan Rochkind:  Martha Yee wrote:> what are the implications of reusing the FRBR work/expression/manifestation entity definitions? >Would that not imply reusing the entity mapping of bibliographic elements that are part of the >FRBR RDF expression?I think you are more-or-less right, but I also think that it is not surprising you are finding deficiencies in the existing FRBR definitions, because the existing FRBR definitions have not been worked on sufficiently.  The work you are doing is very important as one aspect of actually testing  what’s there for FRBR–something that hasn’t really been done.

 December 13 email from Jonathan Rochkind asking for permission to post the above at the blog:

Certainly, anything I post in public you can feel free to do what you like with. 🙂 Later replies to that thread make me think that I was wrong about the relation of the “entity definitions” we are talking about, and the FRBR “central committee”, since it seems like they didn’t come from FRBR itself anyway. But the general point that FRBR is just a starting point and we are sure to find errors in it at present, I certainly stand behind.

DECISION:  Just to stay on the conservative side, I have kept the ycr classes rather than referring to the frbr ones.

One Response to “About the model: Question 18”

  1. Martha M. Yee Says:

    Rob Styles kindly gave me permission to post his December 11 NGC4LIB posting as follows:

    On 10 Dec 2007, at 17:39, Martha Yee wrote:

    > So my question
    > to you all is: what are the implications of reusing the FRBR
    > work/expression/manifestation entity definitions? Would that not
    > imply
    > reusing the entity mapping of bibliographic elements that are part
    > of the
    > FRBR RDF expression?

    The FRBR ontology at http://vocab.org/frbr/core was not produced by
    the same people that produced the FRBR model and marc mappings. So
    not necessarily. The FRBR ontology really maps to the FRBR
    specification, so if you agree with the basic definition of the four
    WEMI classes then you should ideally use the existing work to markup
    your data.

    rob

    Rob Styles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: