Print

Print


On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:44 AM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2014, at 7:13 PM, Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I'm not following... Coining lots of new classes provides a simple way
> of extending the vocabulary?
>
> I don't want to put words in Rob Sanderson's mouth (since he made the
> original critique) but I do agree with him, so I'll offer my point of view:
> it's a question of whether it is easier to extend the vocabulary by adding
> new predicates, or by adding new types.


Happy to have those words put in my mouth :)



> That is, "simple" is relative to the choices. This is especially so if the
> Bibframe predicate vocabulary remains committed to the particular Bibframe
> "two-level" model.
>

However I'll object to the two level characterization on the following
grounds:

1.  It's at least three level with Work, Instance and HeldItem.

2.  It's really the four level FRBR model, given the bf:expressionOf
predicate, just that *cough* you have to infer that the subject of that
predicate is an Expression-y type of Work, rather than a Work-y type of
Work.

Yes, I would prefer to have bf:Expression as a class and be done with it,
or to get rid of the FRBR work around predicates (expressionOf and
hasExpression)

Rob





-- 
Rob Sanderson
Technology Collaboration Facilitator
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305