 |
 |
I respectfully disagree. CRM is an event based model that also models the universe, from a museum object provenance tracking perspective. It doesn't fulfill most of the needs of a bibliographic oriented system. Rob On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Jan 28, 2016 10:40 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > On 1/27/16 10:32 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote: > >> > >> BIBFRAME is well suited for exchange among cultural heritage > organizations. > > > > Personally, I'm thinking that it's too early to declare victory on that. > Maybe it's better to say that it has potential. > > It might even be better to declare defeat:) The CIDOC Common Reference > Model (CRM) (ISO standard), and the related FRBRoo (not ISO - unsure of > IFLA) are quite a bit more mature than the current bibframe outputs. It is > not implausible that restarting the bibframe initiatives using this model > as a basis would give better results, and take less effort. > > It is not necessary to use the entire model for each project ; the CRM can > serve as a conceptual model for interoperability.The British Museum has a > number of active projects based on the CRM. They are experienced with > Rosetta Stones. > > See http://www.cidoc-crm.org . > > Tutorial document is here: > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc_tutorial/index.html > > The erlangen mappings from the rdfs files to OWL 2: > https://github.com/erlangen-crm > > Simon > -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305