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