 |
 |
FRSAD has an interesting analysis of how "aboutness" is modelled [1]. It says: "Scenario 5 Do not make any recommendation on categorisation of subjects. This approach is a more abstract view and does not pose restrictions on any implementations. It also allows a more abstract, general view. This last scenario (5) was the decision taken by the Working Group, based on comparative analysis of all scenarios and the pilot user study. None of scenarios 1-5 are ideal for all situations, while each may be a good solution for particular implementations." This is quite different from the original FRBR model, where the Group 3 elements are specified as "subjects", and it is noted that any of the elements in Groups 1 and 2 can be the object of the "has subject" relationship. I showed in a presentation to the CC:DA/SAC joint meeting at ALA 2011 [2] that the differences in the FR models do not lead to semantic incoherency. That meeting then discussed the wider issues, and I think there was general support for the FRSAD point of view. The issues were also discussed by JSC at a meeting in November 2011, where again there was general support for avoiding subject categorization in RDA, leaving it to applications instead. Cheers Gordon [1] http://www.ifla.org/files/classification-and-indexing/functional-requirements-for-subject-authority-data/frsad-appendix-a.pdf [3] http://www.gordondunsire.com/pubs/pres/FRSubjects.ppt On 27 February 2012 at 20:42 Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 2/27/12 10:53 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > > Whatever, some recent thinking suggests that the about/subject/topicality > > relationship is adequately represented by a single RDF property, such as > > dct:subject or frsad:"has as subject". > > could you say more about this, or point to the recent thinking?