 |
 |
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > My problem with bibo is that it's strongly oriented toward academic journal > articles... I would like to see a comparison to MARC, if anyone has done > that, which might give us an idea of what isn't there. For example, I don't > see the various work/work, work/expression relationships. But it has great > detail in some areas, like time intervals and access rights. Well, I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that it's geared towards academic journals... there's been a lot of work towards all kinds of citations, esp. court cases and whatnot. See the examples: http://wiki.bibliontology.com/index.php/Examples As far as not including FRBR, BIBO doesn't have to, because the FRBR vocabs: http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html and http://vocab.org/frbr/extended.html already do. This way BIBO can focus on describing citations, FRBR can focus on work/expression/manifestion/item relationships and other vocabularies can focus on other attributes (size, location, circ status, whatever). This is part of the flexibility of RDF, the ability to pick and choose among schemas to describe resources however you need to. -Ross.