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:

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: and
> 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 registry. I suspect it will look different to the 
one at, although I haven't looked at the IFLA trial version in 
comparison to the one at Presumably FRAD will also be 
registered by IFLA in the same way.


> 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]
ph.: 510-540-7596   skype: kcoylenet
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234