I'd like to support Casey's point about whole-part relationships not being all of one kind. In the dim mists of the past, MARBI was considering a proposal to support the creation of relationships between separate items that had been bound together and so necessarily shared a barcode. (I think this was it: http://www.loc.gov/marc/marbi/1999/99-02.html). It's interesting how similar the discussion seems to be to some of the FRBR relationship discussions.
Simon Spero wrote:Wow, this is like working on the MENSA quiz in the airline magazine on the way to an ALA conference! ;)
> (1) Everything which is eaten by something is a food.
> (2) Everything that a carnivore eats is an animal. Everything that
> eats an animal is a carnivore.
> (3) Everything that a herbivore eats is a plant. Everything that eats
> a plant is a herbivore.
> (4) Every fly is an animal. Every antelope is an animal. Every flytrap
> is a plant.
> (5) Fred is a fly. Audrey is a flytrap. Ann is an antelope. Noel is a
> grass. Agatha is an antelope.
> (6) Audrey eats Fred. Ann eats Audrey. Ann eats Noel.
> Let's think about how this can be translated to OWL, then consider what
> other sentences are entailed.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!