 |
 |
Ross Singer wrote: > 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 > Still looks pretty limited to me. What academics cite isn't a full bibliographic universe. No music, no films, no way to do realia. And citing isn't the same as bibliographic description. Don't get me wrong, I think it's very complete as a citation format, I just don't think it meets other needs. The right tool for the job... and all that. > 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). > Somehow, though, they have to work together, at least where they are describing the same thing. I think the interaction between things like FRBR/Work and citation is interesting and complex. The RDA Online effort is working to allow you to assign particular data elements to FRBR entities through application profiles -- thus you can have a 'work title' which may be different to the 'manifestation title.' No one uses these differences in citations, but then again we haven't yet used them in library catalogs -- both citations and current library cataloging limit themselves to describing manifestations. However, if you are writing a literary criticism of "Moby Dick" you probably aren't only referring to a particular manifestation, but to the work as a whole. Right now, citation standards don't address this. Also note that IFLA is registering the FRBR vocabulary in the metadataregistry.org registry. I suspect it will look different to the one at vocab.org, although I haven't looked at the IFLA trial version in comparison to the one at vocab.org. Presumably FRAD will also be registered by IFLA in the same way. kc > This is part of the flexibility of RDF, the ability to pick and choose > among schemas to describe resources however you need to. > > -Ross. > > > -- ----------------------------------- Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant [log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net ph.: 510-540-7596 skype: kcoylenet fx.: 510-848-3913 mo.: 510-435-8234 ------------------------------------