Bram Stoker’s Dracula in FRBR Terms
From Melvin Yabut.
Dunsire on FRBR and RDF
In Re: FRBRer & FRAD in Registry Gordon Dunsire gives a good long answer on the DC-RDA mailing list about how FRBR, RDA and RDF are fitting together and where things are at.
Coyle asks about relations
On RDA-L, Karen Coyle asked a Question about RDA relationships (App. J):
I’m pondering the RDA relationships, as defined in Appendix J. I need clarification …
A relationship is between two “things”. FRBR has lists of Work-Work relationships, Expression-Work relationships, etc. Appendix J lists relationships as either Work, Expression, Manifestation or Item relationships. So…
1) are all relationships in Appendix J between equivalent entities? e.g. are they all Work-Work, Expression-Expression?
2) If not, how can one tell what the two “things” are that are being related?
3) I don’t find some relationships that seem to be key: Expression of; Manifestation of; Item of; Translation of (Expression as translation of Work)
I have other questions, but don’t want to muddy the waters … yet.
Lengthy and informative discussion ensued.
Hammond, Is FRBR the OSI for Web Architecture?
FRBR is a useful reference model to clarify some of these concepts. But not one that we are overly concerned with at this time. Nor even whether DOI maps one to one onto a given FRBR layer. What we are more concerned with on a pragmatic level is how DOI maps onto the Web architecture and especially how it plays along with Linked Data concepts.
(Aside: A propos FRBR we might be in danger of repeating the OSI mistake for standardizing the network layer model. Ultimately that was maintained as a reference model but dropped as a concrete model in favour of the TCP/IP stack. Could be that FRBR is our OSI and Linked Data is our TCP/IP stack? That is, we might have to settle on the coarser data model in order to get a coherent story out the door where all can agree.)
The OSI model is seven layers that describe networking from the most basic physical level up to protocols used by applications (such as HTTP). IP (Internet Protocol) is at layer three, and TCP (Transport Control Protocol) is at layer four. Together, as TCP/IP, they’re what make the Internet work. There’s a really interesting idea summarized in the penultimate line in my quote, but I don’t know enough about networking to expand on the comparison.
Chaudri et al, Towards a Toolkit for Implementing Application Profiles
Towards a Toolkit for Implementing Application Profiles, by Talat Chaudhri, Julian Cheal, Richard Jones, Mahendra Mahey and Emma Tonkin, in Ariadne 62 (January 2010). Lots of FRBR throughout.
Dublin Core Application Profiles are intended to be based upon an application model , which can be extremely simple. This article concentrates on the recent set of JISC-funded application profiles, which make use of application models based on variants of FRBR , and which follow the Singapore Framework for Dublin Core Application Profiles . While application profiles are by no means limited to repositories and can for instance be implemented in such wide-ranging software environments as Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Virtual Research Environments (VREs) and eAdmin, this paper focusses in the first instance on digital repositories . However, these wider areas are within the broader scope of this study and it is intended that future work will address them more specifically.