 |
 |
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 ------------------------------------