On 7/25/14, 4:45 PM, Robert Sanderson
wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
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?
kc
[1] http://rdaregistry.info/
[2] http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet