Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas" <tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>:
What appears to be missing is the ability to add the horizontal
relationships-- the Whole-Part relationships from an individual
expression to an aggregate expression, or to other related
expressions. The split in MARC authority and bibliographic data
seems to hamper this flexibility, which means that expression
modelling is limited to the attributes that exist in bibliographic
records. For many application purposes, this might be sufficient,
but it does mean a lot of baggage has to be carried to try to model
aggregates out.
This is where linked data technology is needed. With WEMI there is
only one kind of link between each of the entities. Horizontally
between W's, however, there are many possible relationships. You need
more than "link" -- you need links with meaning ("derived from"
"abridged as").
I don't know how VTLS has stored its relationships internally, but I
do know that this kind of "semantic linking" is what makes the
semantic web a great idea.
kc
Thomas Brenndorfer
Guelph Public Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: January 16, 2012 11:41 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR Working
..
If we discard the idea of aggregating works and aggregating expressions
in the sense of the Working Group, we are back to aggregate works, and
there is certainly more than one way of modeling them.
Personally, I can think of four possibilities, which I've tried to
visualize in yet another paper:
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/
under "Working papers", called "Additional diagrams #3"
or directly under: http://tinyurl.com/7wskyjp
I didn't have the time to comment on them thoroughly, but I hope the
main differences are clear from the diagrams. If you can think of more
ways of modeling aggregates, please let me know.
The next step should be to take a number of interesting cases (e.g. an
augmented edition; a monographic series; two collections containing
different expressions of the same works; a journal article as part of an
aggregate work and as an off-print; a collection of essays as part of an
aggregate, i.e. the question of recursiveness) and see what the models
would look like in these cases. Then it should be possible to compare
them as to their strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, one model would
stand out in the end as the one which works best. Then this could be a
basis for questions of technical implementation.
--
Karen Coyle
kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
