Karen:
I agree, and these horizontal relationships are represented in MARC
records, if there at all, as textual notes. This means that we can't rely
on legacy data as it exists now to be much help. But the relationships
represented in this empty horizontal space are probably the best thing RDA
brings to the table, and we'd better figure out how to supply them ex post
facto, or we'll miss the real benefit of all this.
Diane
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Quoting "Brenndorfer, Thomas"
> <tbrenndorfer@LIBRARY.GUELPH.**ON.CA<tbrenndor...@library.guelph.on.ca>
> >:
>
>
>
> What appears to be missing is the ability to add the horizontal
>> relationships-- the Whole-Part relationships from an individual expression
>> to an aggregate expression, or to other related expressions. The split in
>> MARC authority and bibliographic data seems to hamper this flexibility,
>> which means that expression modelling is limited to the attributes that
>> exist in bibliographic records. For many application purposes, this might
>> be sufficient, but it does mean a lot of baggage has to be carried to try
>> to model aggregates out.
>>
>
> This is where linked data technology is needed. With WEMI there is only
> one kind of link between each of the entities. Horizontally between W's,
> however, there are many possible relationships. You need more than "link"
> -- you need links with meaning ("derived from" "abridged as").
>
> I don't know how VTLS has stored its relationships internally, but I do
> know that this kind of "semantic linking" is what makes the semantic web a
> great idea.
>
> kc
>
>
>
>> Thomas Brenndorfer
>> Guelph Public Library
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
>>> [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-**BAC.GC.CA <RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA>]
>>> On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
>>> Sent: January 16, 2012 11:41 AM
>>> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
>>> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Some comments on the Final Report of the FRBR
>>> Working
>>>
>>>
>> ..
>>
>>>
>>> If we discard the idea of aggregating works and aggregating expressions
>>> in the sense of the Working Group, we are back to aggregate works, and
>>> there is certainly more than one way of modeling them.
>>>
>>> Personally, I can think of four possibilities, which I've tried to
>>> visualize in yet another paper:
>>> http://www.mendeley.com/**profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/<http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/heidrun-wiesenmuller/>
>>> under "Working papers", called "Additional diagrams #3"
>>> or directly under: http://tinyurl.com/7wskyjp
>>>
>>> I didn't have the time to comment on them thoroughly, but I hope the
>>> main differences are clear from the diagrams. If you can think of more
>>> ways of modeling aggregates, please let me know.
>>>
>>> The next step should be to take a number of interesting cases (e.g. an
>>> augmented edition; a monographic series; two collections containing
>>> different expressions of the same works; a journal article as part of an
>>> aggregate work and as an off-print; a collection of essays as part of an
>>> aggregate, i.e. the question of recursiveness) and see what the models
>>> would look like in these cases. Then it should be possible to compare
>>> them as to their strengths and weaknesses. Hopefully, one model would
>>> stand out in the end as the one which works best. Then this could be a
>>> basis for questions of technical implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
