Karen, I don't completely understand the RDF vocabulary issues either, but since you all on RDA/DCMI committee had the foresight to create those unconstrained 'base' properties that do not restrict domain or range, if there is a property you'd like to put on a Work that exists in RDA but is not allowed on work -- can you use one of those unconstrained properties?
I would suggest that if there is a property that logically applies to every possible E/M of a W, and RDA declared it on E or M expecting that it be entered identically on every E or M of a W -- then RDA is incorrect. But so be it, we work with incorrect stuff sometimes. On 11/18/2010 1:59 PM, Lee Passey wrote: > On Wed, November 17, 2010 11:45 pm, Karen Coyle wrote: > >> Jonathan, your arguments make sense to me (a human) but unfortunately >> the data you wish to create is not allowed by either FRBR nor RDF -- >> perhaps because both are too rigid to do what we need to do. > I cannot speak to the capabilities of RDF, as I believe that the number of > people in the world who actually understand RDF can be numbered with no more > than 2 ditits, but I would suggest that not only is Mr. Rochkind's construct > allowed by FRBR, it is /manadated./ > >> The FRBR WEMI entities are declared as disjoint in their domains. >> Therefore, if you say: >> >> book23 frbr:hasCreator "Jonathan" >> book23 frbr:hasPublisher "Harper& Row" >> >> you have created a contradiction, because no RDF subject can be both a >> Work and a Manifestation, since those are disjoint. > Are you falling into the "one unit" trap that Mr. Rochkind thought I was > subject to? Why do you feel that both of these data points must be represented > in a single object? > > Assuming that "book23" is a manifestation, /I/ would represent your example > as: > > person23 frbr:Name "Jonathan Rochkind" > > work23 frbr:hasCreator person23 > > expression23 frbr:expresses work23 > expression23 frbr:hasTitle "A treatise on the correct use of the FRBR Model" > > book23 frbr:manifests expression23 > book23 frbr:hasPublisher "Harper& Row" > > book24 frbr:manifests expression23 > book24 frbr:hasPublisher "Random House" > > Five Entities representing two Manifestations of a single Work with no > redundant data. Seems perfect to me. > >> The statement >> book23 frbr:hasCreator "Jonathan" >> in RDF declares by inference that book23 is of the domain that has >> been defined for the predicate property. These rules mean that you >> cannot mix and match properties between WEMI, assigning them to the >> same identified "thing." > Correct. You assign a property to the appropriate "thing" and then you build > relationships that tie the "things" together in different ways. This way you > can avoid inconsistent, redundant data. > >> This is one of the main objections I have to >> WEMI. It would be great if the assignment of properties to one of WEMI >> would be optional, but RDF does not appear to have that concept. > If RDF cannot express FRBR/WEMI properties and relationships then it seems to > me that RDF is broken, not FRBR/WEMI. Do not conflate the two, they are > orthogonal systems. > > It is certainly possible to express the foregoing in a single "unit" using > generic XML, so I presume it should be possible to do so using the RDF > vocabulary. Consider this, in which the relationships are implicit: > > <theWholeThing> > <frbr:Manifestation id = "book24"> > <frbr:Manifestation.Publisher>Random House</frbr:Manifestation.Publisher> > <frbr:Expression id = "expression23"> > <frbr:Expression.title>The correct use of FRBR</frbr:Expression.title> > <frbr:Work id = "work23"> > <frbr:Person id = "person23" rel = "frbr:IsCreatedBy"> > <frbr:Person.name>Jonathan Rochkind</frbr:Person.name> > </frbr:Person> > </frbr:Work> > </frbr:Expression> > </frbr:Manifestation> > </theWholeThing> > > Or this, in which the relationships are explicit: > > <theWholeThing> > <frbr:Person id = "person23"> > <frbr:Person.name>Jonathan Rochkind</frbr:Person.name> > </frbr:Person> > <frbr:Work id = "work23"> > <frbr:IsCreatedBy ref = "#person23" /> > </frbr:Work> > <frbr:Expression id = "expression23"> > <frbr:Expression.expresses ref = "#work23" /> > <frbr:Expression.title>The correct use of FRBR</frbr:Expression.title> > </frbr:Expression> > <frbr:Manifestation id = "book23"> > <frbr:Manifestation.manifests ref = "#expression23" /> > <frbr:Manifestation.Publisher>Random House</frbr:Manifestation.Publisher> > </frbr:Manifestation> > </theWholeThing> > > In my mind, both of these examples express a comlete FRBR/WEM representation > of a Manifestation. Is RDF incapable of this same sort of expression? Not only > could I parse and generate either of these examples back and forth losslessly, > I could probably map them back and forth to a MARC record (although possibly > not losslessly). > > I find it hard to believe that FRBR + RDF is not flexible enough to mimic this > kind of encoding, but then, as I repeatedly point out I don't really > understand RDF. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ol-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Ol-tech mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-tech To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
