On 7/25/14, 4:45 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> While we're piling on...
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Philip Evan Schreur 
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>      Structure and data needs come first. Once that's settled, we look
>     to see how RDA can be expressed in that structure.
> This is exactly it.  Bibframe should support RDA, not be constrained 
> by it.  Additional constraints can be layered on top, for example via 
> profiles.

And RDA could be one of those profiles. But *something* has to be the 
basis for the underlying data model. I believe that's what FRBR was 
trying to be, but unfortunately, FRBR was designed around relational 
database concepts and does not fit well into the RDF world. BIBFRAME has 
devised its own model, although I'd like to see more discussion of what 
that model is trying to represent. (Remember that many people are not 
happy at how BF item data is modeled, and the definition of BF 
annotation is still quite unclear.)

RDA has its own RDF vocabulary [1] and may soon have a data creation 
platform (at least a beta). (Note that RDA has 1676 properties (!).) 
FRBR has an OWL vocabulary called "FRBRer" that has a whole host of 
problems (not the least of which is a fairly deep misunderstanding of 
OWL). [2] We have no dearth of RDF vocabularies (there's even one for 
ISBD), but it's still not clear to me what direction we are going in or 
what are the principles guiding the development of BIBFRAME. Not that I 
would want to turn BIBFRAME development over to the catechism that 
guides IFLA, but, really, what is it that we are doing?


> Rob

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet