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
ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
|
