 |
 |
Hey there. I'm working on some software that tries to represent FRBR in a data model. Whereas it would handily be represented in RDF, my "user profile" requirements for this project force me to cater to the lowest common denominator, being MySQL or PostgreSQL. As such, I've been working on a MySQL schema for "normal, non-RDF folk". You can see the Project Goals for the software here: http://www.disobey.com/noos/LibDB/ Currently, everything is very, very rough, and the DatabaseSchema that is currently available is out of date. This email is about the current versions of the SQL schema, which covers just Group 1 Entities, as well as their relationships amongst each other. The data involved is film, so one movie has been marked up in this way as an experiment. I need comments. I'll be starting Group 2 (person and corporate body, probably the most time consuming of this process) sometime tomorrow. There are two files I'm interested in having you take a look at (which I can attach if necessary): http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/libdb/LibDB/databases/ WARNING! Be sure you're looking at Rev 1.5 (which should be there shortly, compensating for the lag of the web cvs servers). mysql_sample.sql is a "real world" mapping of a movie entitled THE POOL, and mysql_schema.sql is the database schema that describes it. To truly understand what's going on here, you should: * have a background in relational database programming. * be able to read and understand SQL from the schema and data. If you don't, these files won't be useful to you - I've plans to write a more concise, verbose, and friendly article about all this once I get a closer idea of how more data maps, and so forth. If you're still here, some specific areas to look at are the relationships defined. In the current schema, there are (at the bottom), six relationships defined; three come from FRBR and are well-defined: $work is realized through $expression $expression is a realization of $work $expression is embodied in $manifestation $manifestation is an embodiment of $expression $manifestation is exemplified by $item $item is an exemplar of $manifestation You can tell this is a hierarchy. However, three relationships were defined explicitly by me to cover some of the attributes of the various FRBR entities. That's what I need sanity checking on (both in the terms used to link the relationship, and in the actual SQL implementation and layout): $entity is also named $name $name is a variant name of $entity $entity is summarized with $annotation $annotation is a summarization of $entity $annotation is summarized by $entity $entity is a summarizer of $annotation The last two relationships can be used validly to say: "THE POOL is summarized with [this annotation]"; "[This annotation] is summarized by [this author]"; but, in the sample data, the summarization actually comes from the back of the DVD. So, in essence, another example is: "THE POOL is summarized with [this annotation]"; "[This annotation] is summarized by [the DVD manifestation]"; Thoughts? -- Morbus Iff ( don't heckle the super-villian ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus