Karen Coyle wrote:
> Sorry, spoke/wrote too soon. FRBR at vocab.org isn't using the FRBR 
> attributes either. And it does have the entities as classes. I'm still 
> not sure how one can model a relationship between RDA or bibo properties 
> and FRBR Group 1 entities and their properties. RDA tries to assign 
> descriptive properties (like 'title' and 'place of publication') to 
> particular FRBR Group 1 entities, which I think doesn't work.
>
>   
I'm curious why you think that doesn't work?  Isn't "place of 
publication" a characteristic of a particular manifestation? While, 
"title", according to traditional library practices where you take it 
from the title page, is also a characteristic of a particular 
manifestation, is it not? ("uniform title" is _usually_ a characteristic 
of a work, unless we get into music cataloging and some other 'edge' 
cases. Our traditional practices -- which aren't actually changed that 
much by RDA, are rather confusing.)

I am confused about what one would do about the fact that RDA defines 
attributes a bit different than FRBR itself does. It's not too 
surprising -- FRBR is really just a draft, hardly tested in the world. 
When RDA tried to make it a bit more concrete, it's not surprising that 
they found they had to make changes to make it workable. Not sure what 
to do about that in the grand scheme of things, if RDA and FRBR both end 
up registering different vocabularies. I guess we'll just have two 
different vocabularies though, which isn't too shocking I guess.

Jonathan





> OK, I'm off to think about this some more. With some BIG pieces of paper.
>
> kc
>
>
> Karen Coyle wrote:
>   
>> Ross Singer wrote:
>>     
>>> Right, but that's how it would work.  If these resources were modeled
>>> in RDF, they'd have URIs.  What you would do is to say 'bibliographic
>>> things' you'd use bibo attributes with the URI.  To say work grouping
>>> things you'd use FRBR/FRAR attributes with the URI.
>>>
>>> So as long as they're using the same URIs, they're describing the 
>>> same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> OK, Now I think I see where we're missing each other. Right now, IFLA 
>> is not thinking about registering (or creating identifiers for) the 
>> FRBR "attributes," just the entities and relationships.  I'm not sure 
>> that the attributes make the cut... and they aren't the same as the 
>> properties that RDA has defined. RDA properties have been assigned to 
>> particular FRBR entities (Groups 1 and 2 only, since RDA didn't do 
>> Group 3) in the RDA documentation, but there isn't complete agreement 
>> within the cataloging community as to which properties go with which 
>> FRBR Group 1 entities. So what RDA online is experimenting with is 
>> applying the FRBR entities as classes to RDA properties in an 
>> application profile that brings together RDA 'data elements' 
>> (properties in RDF) and FRBR entities (classes in RDF). (I haven't 
>> seen the result yet in the http://metadataregistry.org so I'm unclear 
>> on how the FRBR relationships will be used. I think they've been 
>> registered as properties.)
>>
>> I'm not at all sure what will happen with the FRBR attributes that are 
>> in the FRBR document, but they seem to have been rejected by the JSC 
>> in the RDA process. Nor can I figure out what's going to happen when 
>> the FRAD draft is made official. FRAD essentially includes all of FRBR 
>> plus some other properties and relationships.
>>
>> Now bibo has many attributes that might be the same as RDA attributes, 
>> or that could at least have some meaning within the FRBR defined 
>> classes. FRBR entities could be used with bibo, if the idea for RDA in 
>> the http://metadataregistry.org works, by creating an application 
>> profile for bibo + FRBR classes.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>     
>
>
>