Norman Paskin wrote:
> Andy comments that : 
>> while the "event-based model"
> discussion is interesting, it is fundamentally not aligned with a FRBR
> view of the world 
> 
> I disagree.  I think the point of the CIDOC/FRBR harmonisation work, which I
> cited earlier, was to show that in fact FRBR *IS* aligned with an
> events-based model, and making this explicit as it was hitherto implicit
> (perhaps not originally in the specification, but a logical condequence of
> it). 

Now I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing when we say 
"FRBR". But I can say for sure that a statement "RDA = FRBR" is untrue. 
The relationship between RDA and FRBR is complex and unresolved. RDA 
defines a Group II entity that is not in FRBR ("Family"), and the RDA 
properties have some but rather sketchy overlap with the FRBR entity 
"attributes." RDA has basically punted on drawing a line between works 
and expressions, and between manifestations and items. Since, as Diane 
says, our goal is to define RDA vocabularies (and not to fix FRBR nor to 
even fix RDA), we may just have to ignore these differences between RDA 
and FRBR and get on with our task. If someone else wants to be "fixing" 
FRBR in the background, that's great and we should definitely keep in touch.

kc

  I don't see a logical division (or problem; or two meanings of
> "event"), merely a difference in how explicit one is/needs to be.  "The
> French Revolution" might be a useful item for cataloguing (without
> necessarily deploying full events-based modelling), and equally a useful
> event in modelling / relating to other resources (using such tools as
> CIDOC/FRBRoo). 
> 
> N
> 
> 
> Dr. Norman Paskin


-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------