Quoting Erik Hetzner ehetz...@gmail.com:
frbr (the ontology) describes a person as equivalent to foaf:Person
[1] which seems to confirm my opinion.
Actually, the way I read it, FRBR and FOAF are entirely different
realms, although it is possible that FRBR:Person could be contained
within
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lee Passey l...@novomail.net wrote:
So before any questions about how best to represent a person in RDF can
be addressed, you should try to find out who will be consuming the data,
and what their expectations are.
I think this is an important point, and is
2c worth to agree completely with Rob, and to add a little (off topic) broader
context. I agree that the underlying person is the same and their bibliographic
life and their social life are just two facets which may have some information
overlap.
Because of the areas we work in as a fed
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net wrote:
Quoting Jim Pitman pit...@stat.berkeley.edu:
The edge case of corporate authors needs to be accomodated. An instructive
example is Nicolas Bourbaki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net wrote:
The vocab.org FRBR schema was NOT developed by the folks who created
FRBR and, IMO, it exhibits some misunderstandings of the intentions of
the actual developers.
That's right, we developed it back in 2005 before IFLA were
Quoting Ed Summers e...@pobox.com:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lee Passey l...@novomail.net wrote:
So before any questions about how best to represent a person in RDF can
be addressed, you should try to find out who will be consuming the data,
and what their expectations are.
I think
Quoting Erik Hetzner ehetz...@gmail.com:
In other words, we have a Person (e.g., [2]), a Person as
bibliographic entity (as in FRBR), and finally one or more
bibliographic records about the person, (e.g., [1]). Do I have that
right?
I was looking at it that way, in particular because the OL
Again, modelling is a matter of personal judgement and use cases.
To me it's quite appropriate to model person-subject and person-person as
different entities -- so long as there is also a relationship relating them. It
might even be preferable, not sure.
Assuming OL _knows_ that a person as
