At Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:28:18 -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > 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 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
pgpDbI9LnY7Mw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list Ol-tech@archive.org http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to ol-tech-unsubscr...@archive.org
