Hi -

I have a few questions that I am hoping somebody can help me out with,
since it came up. They follow inline if anybody is inclined to help
out my thinking.

At Fri, 04 Jun 2010 06:49:24 -0700,
Karen Coyle wrote:
> […]
> Given that it is called "author", (and I'm only trying to reflect the  
> modeling already done in OL), I suspect that this is a bibliographic  
> entity. I'll think about doing the Person modeling. Another option is  
> frbr:Person, isn't it? However, frbr defines Person as a bibliographic  
> entity, as I recall.

FRBR (the document, 2008) says:

| For the purposes of this study persons are treated as entities only
| to the extent that they are involved in the creation or realization
| of a work (e.g., as authors, composers, artists, editors,
| translators, directors, performers, etc.), or are the subject of a
| work (e.g., as the subject of a biographical or autobiographical
| work, of a history, etc.). [§3.2.5, p. 25]

Does this mean that the non-information resource of a person (that is,
a URI that identifies a person) is distinct from the FRBR person
resource? My first guess would be that they are equivalent, though
FRBR obviously brackets any information about persons that is not
relevant to bibliographic information.

frbr (the ontology) describes a person as equivalent to foaf:Person
[1] which seems to confirm my opinion.

> I see this use of dcterms:modified a lot, and I'm pretty sure it's  
> usually incorrect, modifying the entity being described rather than  
> the record for the entity. However, the the rdf:about is  
> "http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL26320A";. So now the question is:  
> does that mean the data found at that address, or the bibliographic  
> entity that record represents? It seems to me that nothing in RDF  
> refers to the record... but using <http:// without some prefix saying  
> what it is doesn't seem to fit into the RDF record. I have no  
> namespace for http. Or did I misunderstand your suggestion here?

Are you saying that there is a usable distinction between:

1. a bibliographic record, and
2. the data contained in that bibliographic record?

From above, my first notion would be to model things as, in

  <Victor Hugo> a frbr:Person .
  <Victor Hugo> rdfs:isDefinedBy <bib record> .
  <bib record> dc:modified "..."^^xsd:date .

But it seems to me that you are adding a further distinction::

  <Victor Hugo> a frbr:Person .
  <Victor Hugo> rdfs:isDefinedBy <bib record> .
  <bib record> rdfs:isDefinedBy <bib record data>
  <bib record data> dc:modified "..."^^xsd:date .

Is this a usable or useful distinction? Are there times when we want
to distinguish between the abstract bibliographic record and the
representation of a bibliographic record? In linked data-speak, is a
bibliographic record a non-information resource? My thinking has been
that a bibliographic record is an information resource, and that one
does not need to distinguish between (1) and (2) above.

best, Erik

1. <http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html#Person>

Attachment: pgp2oyCFtLdOr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Ol-tech mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to 

Reply via email to