Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

We have about the same issue with BnF bibliographic data.
RDA allows to express a direct relationship between a Manifestation
and a Work using "Work Manifested
"(http://RDVocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/workManifested). It doesn't
solve all issues (the Expression still exists and we need a way to
describe it) but it seems a pragmatic approach to me.

Emmanuelle


On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> I have a dilemma which I think is fairly common. I have bibliographic data
> that does not follow the FRBR group 1 divisions (work, expression,
> manifestation, item). These are entries in the Open Library database, which
> has two levels rather than four: Work, and Everything Else. (OCLC's WorldCat
> appears to have the same division.) I want to create a relationship between
> the Work and the Everything Else entity (using their respective
> identifiers).
>
> As defined, FRBR only allows relationships from Expression to Work, and
> Manifestation to Expression. (I will gloss over Item because there is little
> item-level information in the records I am concerned with.) What I need,
> however, is a relationship between a Manifestation (with some Expression
> information) and a Work. The same Expression information may be found in
> more than one bibliographic entry so there is no true Expression entity that
> is defined in the data.
>
> I have often seen pre-FRBR bibliographic data coded as "Manifestation" when
> in fact the data has elements that FRBR would associate with Work,
> Expression and Manifestation. This brings up more than one question (mainly:
> what does calling a bibliographic entity a Manifestation mean if there is no
> "Manifests" relationship? -- In other words, are the FRBR group 1 entities
> things, relationships, or both?), but on a practical level it seems that we
> will need to work with bibliographic data that either is not modeled as FRBR
> entities, or that models a variation on these entities. I'm thinking that
> some new classes and some new relationships may be needed to accommodate
> this.
>
> Does anyone have ideas about the best way to go about this?
>
> kc
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 13 September 2010 19:19:31 UTC
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Sep/0050.html
lists.w3.org
CC-MAIN-2024-26
10972
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:I5TX6WHSV4VX4W3RJHL52BWU576JEHGB
<urn:uuid:78731917-ce98-4b06-805c-22629d27b988>
2024-06-15T14:14:52Z
104.18.22.19
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:ITDBKNRWTARMU56VRO6GKQALYN76VOLR
<urn:uuid:23ba8fee-0887-41a3-913f-76426a5325a9>
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Sep/0050.html
response
<urn:uuid:37ed42d1-db8d-4041-af94-071270501152>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-115
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/