Print

Print



On 7/25/14, 4:45 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

While we're piling on...

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Philip Evan Schreur <[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?

kc
[1] http://rdaregistry.info/
[2] http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbrer/

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Rob


-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet