Karen said: “… unfortunately, FRBR was designed around relational database concepts and does not fit well into the RDF world”
This is what FRBR actually says: “The methodology used in this study is based on an entity analysis technique that is used in the development of conceptual models for relational database systems. Although the study is not intended to serve directly as a basis for the design of bibliographic databases, the technique was chosen as the basis for the methodology because it provides a structured approach to the analysis of data requirements that facilitates the processes of definition and delineation that were set out in the terms of reference for the study.”
I don’t think that’s quite the same thing. In any case, a normalized RDBMS is a very good fit indeed with the RDF world; see, for example, the work of the W3C RDB2RDF Working Group .
Karen also said “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).” I am sure the FRBR Review Group would like to correct any problems, so it would be useful if you could elaborate on what the problems are. Also, please let us know what is being misunderstood about OWL.
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]> 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  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).  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?