tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post67213119835007345..comments2023-09-29T08:51:56.163-07:00Comments on Coyle's InFormation: Catching up: OCLC, GBS, LODKaren Coylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-73239029609329250252010-07-08T10:41:03.219-07:002010-07-08T10:41:03.219-07:00jm -
I totally agree as far as the predicates go....jm -<br /><br />I totally agree as far as the predicates go. (I was referring to the subjects and objects above.) I see lots of problems with those, not the least of which that it isn't clear to me when you have something like<br /><br />is subject (manifestation) of<br /><br />whether manifestation refers to the subject or the object of the predicate. And either way, you've got a redundancy here since the predicate relates a manifestation to ... something. I find the whole thing to be a mess, and would like to see some concerted discussion, since I doubt that it is usable in this form.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-12928673693449022662010-07-07T13:10:27.236-07:002010-07-07T13:10:27.236-07:00I'll have to think more about whether I'm ...I'll have to think more about whether I'm being unreasonable here, but my first reaction is a combination of 'ew' and 'huh?' When would anyone care about a predicate, by itself, out of context? And if it's *in* context (i.e., part of an RDF triple), then you look at the subject and query what class of entity it is and you're done. That's the 'huh?' part. The 'ew' part is using a predicate to imply class membership on the part of a subject. Ugly in the extreme.jmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12725535284275473354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-85967226109432656992010-07-07T10:07:16.257-07:002010-07-07T10:07:16.257-07:00jm -
I posted a similar "concern" on th...jm -<br /><br />I posted a similar "concern" on the RDA list (since RDA does the same thing) and got an answer that has since been retracted. I think the whole issue of what has to be tied to the FRBR entities and what can be used where needed is wide open and not at all well understood. The big issue is: how do we work this out, since the FRBR committees and the RDA committee work behind closed doors. <br /><br />As far as RDA is concerned, every entity is specifically tied to a single FRBR entity. This has some interesting advantages, because it means that you can take a statement out of context without losing meaning. (I think I need to write something more extensive about this...). So there is a property called "Title of the Work", which means title of the work wherever it appears, and does not depend on being in a structure that looks like:<br /><br />Work<br /> Title of Work<br />/Work<br /><br />and is distinguished from "Title Proper" because the latter is solely used for the title of the Manifestation. <br /><br />The obvious disadvantage is that there are hundreds and hundreds of properties, so interacting with the non-library community will have to use a different vocabulary, since no one else will be wedded to FRBR and this level of detail.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-87579975682224434532010-07-07T09:33:15.106-07:002010-07-07T09:33:15.106-07:00Maybe it's just me, but the FRBRer model looks...Maybe it's just me, but the FRBRer model looks...odd. Creating multiple properties for a single property if that property can have multiple classes in its domain or range doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do I really need two "is_realized_by" properties, one to use if I'm linking to a person and one to use if I'm linking to a corporate body?jmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12725535284275473354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-4278640922951325352010-07-06T13:46:45.379-07:002010-07-06T13:46:45.379-07:00Eric, I basically agree that copyright in WorldCat...Eric, I basically agree that copyright in WorldCat has little utility. I can only imagine that OCLC could claim that some other party had replicated substantially all of WorldCat, and thus violated their copyright, but I can't see how one would prove such a claim (much less how/why someone would create a database that would trigger such an action). As in many things, I think it's meant to be a warning and a deterrent, rather than being something that OCLC thinks would actually stand up in a court of law. If nothing else, a huge, unselected gathering of library bibliographic data would probably not meet any criteria of "creativity" required by US law on compilations. So I read it as postering -- not unlike many claims of copyrights and a whole bunch of patent claims, as well.Karen Coylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519757456533839003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3338174527262061848.post-22756406938530978472010-07-06T07:08:31.444-07:002010-07-06T07:08:31.444-07:00Let's grant, for a moment, that OCLC's cop...Let's grant, for a moment, that OCLC's copyright to the compilation is valid. What is such a copyright useful for? In what situations might the copyright be asserted? The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the copyright claim is completely irrelevant.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.com