The Committee of Principles, rather than the JSC, submitted a response.
I think both the British Library and Library and Archives Canada have
also responded. The National Library of Australia didn't, mostly because
it wasn't clear to me that the Group was seeking international comment.
Cheers,
Deirdre
-----Original Message-----
From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gordon Dunsire
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2007 9:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Update on task group stuff
Karen
I've added a link to your blog entry on the Task Group wiki - most
useful.
And I've posted a comment to the LC working group.
Q to others: has JSC made a response to the working group?
Cheers
Gordon
________________________________
From: List for discussion on Resource Description and Access (RDA) on
behalf of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thu 12/13/2007 5:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Update on task group stuff
Gordon, thanks for the update. I did a comparison of 3 FRBR-like
attempts, looking just at the classes:
http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2007/12/interpretations-of-frbr-classes.html
The FRBR in RDF created some "super-classes" that are interesting.
Gordon Dunsire wrote:
> But what may be extremely useful for FRBR is the development of an
ontology for the FRBR entity-relationships structure in OWL.
Yes, this would be a good next step.
> * Treatment of "relationships" as a SKOS vocabulary (relationship as
> concept)
rather than RDF properties. We have chosen a preferred label for the
concept
behind the relationship (e.g. "Embodiment" rather than the reciprocal
pair "is-embodied-as/has-embodiment") with the idea that the
reciprocation
is better handled in OWL.
Where I am unsure about SKOS is that it appears to be based on the
definition of concepts. FRBR (and anything we build on it) will need to
go beyond this, to defining relationships between things, as well as
actions on things. I don't know if SKOS will handle that.
> The FRBR initiative does not seem to have informed the draft report of
> the
Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control
If you mean the most recent work, no, it wasn't announced in time for
that report. Ditto the recent RDA announcement about changing the
structure of RDA -- that was announced the same day that the draft
report was presented.
>
>
> (Incidentally, am I the only person who thinks the suspension of work
> on RDA would actually negate all the other, mainly good,
> recommendations in this report? Or, which comes first, the chicken or
> the egg?)
>
No, you aren't. So it would be great if you would post a comment to the
working group to this effect -- it doesn't have to be a highly formal
statement:
http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/contact/
kc
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask]
http://www.kcoyle.net <http://www.kcoyle.net/>
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|