At Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:28:18 -0700,
Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Erik Hetzner <>:
> > 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 foaf:Person. FRBR states that it does not attempt to define
> persons EXCEPT as they relate to bibliographic description, which
> means that it does not exist to describe every person on a social
> networking site (which FOAF does).

They are different realms of description, but the thing described (a
person) is the same in both, as I see it.

> > Are you saying that there is a usable distinction between:
> >
> > 1. a bibliographic record, and
> > 2. the data contained in that bibliographic record?
> Yes, and it is usually referred to as "administrative data" -- that
> is, data about the record (who created it, when it was last updated),
> rather than the data about the subject of the record. Sometimes that
> is contained within the record, sometimes it is contained in a
> wrapper, as in METS and OAI.

Sorry, looking at my question I realize I wrote it wrong. I agree
completely about the need for a distinction between the record itself
and the thing the record is about.

(The source of my misunderstanding was imagining that you were
discussing a 2nd abstraction. I thought that you were describing first
a thing (e.g., a book), then the abstract concept of a bibliographic
record about that book, and finally the actual data contained in that
record. Thanks for clarifying.)

best, Erik

Attachment: pgpDbI9LnY7Mw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

Reply via email to