On Jan 28, 2016 5:11 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.

I don't know if I would  describe the model as event based, as opposed to
having a strong event model.  I don't think Carl Lagoze would be unhappy

You are absolutely right that the CRM doesn't cover many important
Bibliographic concepts. These concepts should be modeled in FRBRoo (which
as of version 2 includes FRAD and FRSAD).

The IFLA page for FRBRoo is

The response to solicited comments on version 2.2 are informative.


From version FRBRoo v.2.4:

<<1.1.1. A Common View of Cultural Heritage Information

The main goal is to reach a common view of cultural heritage information
with respect to modelling, standards, recommendations, and practices.
Libraries and museums are memory institutions – both strive to preserve
cultural heritage objects, and information about such objects, and they
often share the same users.

Besides, the boundary between them is often blurred: libraries hold a
number of museum objects and museums hold a number of library objects; the
cultural heritage objects preserved in both types of institutions were
in the same cultural context or period, sometimes by the same agents, and
they provide evidence of comparable cultural features. It seems therefore
appropriate to build a common conceptualisation of the information gathered
by the two types of organisations about cultural heritage.

It should be kept in mind that FRBROO was developed as a high-level
conceptual model. It is not meant to be implemented verbatim, nor does it
cover all the details that are usually to be found in actual records
by libraries. Implementation issues, such as how to handle strings, how to
represent identifiers, how to represent time, etc., are not covered in the
model. The purpose of both FRBROO and CIDOC CRM is to achieve
interoperability, not to propose a particular implementation.>>