Compare the definitions for   CollectionSet , and  Group (and possibly Mob). 

Also relevant are Conceptual work and InformationBearingThing,  It is interesting to note that this model allows for InformationBearingThings that are not propositional; this is different to the CIDOC model, but I tend to go with Buckland and Briet, and say that there  is necessarily at least one proposition associated with any IBT- The frog in the museum carries  at least  the propositional content that the curator of the museum asserted that "this is a frog".  (Mutilated example  from better one by Martin Doerr (I think)),  I exceeded my antelope quota.

The information models are worth looking at, (especially if you have a ResearchCyc license).  I'm told that the ontologist who developed the model was heavily influenced by  Lubetzky and his intellectual heirs.  
   
Simon

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Diane Hillmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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. 

In any case, the discussion of the proposal ultimately came down to the differences between bibliographic relationships (between editions, for instance) and physical relationships (items bound and circulated together, sometimes for obvious reasons--issues of a serial--or for reasons unclear but relating to practices a century or so ago). I was dealing with miscellaneous collections of pamphlets bound together at the time, so the problem was not abstract from my point of view.

As I recall, the much-to-simple solution proposed originally by a vendor were not accepted, largely because of the discussion at the meeting. Although these situations seem so rare that they should not interfere with our quest for simplicity, in fact they are often cases that can teach us quite a bit about the limits of simplification in whatever model of the world we're looking at.  

Diane


On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Simon Spero wrote:

>       (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.

Wow, this is like working on the MENSA quiz in the airline magazine on the way to an ALA conference!  ;)

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Library
[log in to unmask]
(847) 491-2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!