I can't think of any relationship you wouldn't want to be reciprocal.
If A is related to B in a certain way, then sometimes you're going to
want to know for some B, what A's are related to it in that certain way.
Pretty standard.
Jonathan
Karen Coyle wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Alistair Miles
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I have used Ian Davis' FRBR Core schema, which uses a consistent
>> property naming convention based on role nouns. I like this convention
>> a lot, and strongly recommend it for IFLA's own registration.
>>
>
> I was going to ask something about this... I'm curious about
> "reciprocality" of relationships. If we say: B is the embodiment of A,
> and we have work A and expression B, what is the direction of
> "embodiment" and does it imply that if B is the embodiment of A, then
> A is embodied by B? Are there any possible relationships that aren't
> reciprocal?
>
> Also, say you have two expressions but no defined work. You know they
> are the embodiment of something. How do you handle that? (I'm
> intending to add a cataloger scenario for this one.)
>
> In addition, what if you have a situation where you have an A whose
> FRBR group1 entity is undefined (let's say that the metadata has been
> created by someone who does not adhere to FRBR). Can you say that B is
> the embodiment of A if A isn't defined as a work?
>
> kc
>
>
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
|