[open-bibliography] More verbs. Electronic 'Items' (Yes, another FRBR thread)
dan at cimec.ro
Tue Jul 13 16:43:56 BST 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> [mailto:open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf
> Of Weinheimer Jim
> Sent: 13 iulie 2010 13:24
> So, this led me to consider if there really is such a thing
> as a "manifestation" and if not, what is it? I have decided
Another abstraction ? :-)
> My question is: if the manifestation is only a matter of
> definitions (IF title, publication information, dates etc.
> are all the same, then it is a duplicate; or if the date is
> within x number of years, it is a copy, and so on and so on)
> it seems as if this would be a perfect candidate for
> automatic sorting and display. If people (or computers)
> create the metadata record, they would always copy *exactly
> what they see* and instead of puzzling out which
> "manifestation" this item belongs to manually, let the
> machine sort out the displays.
Hm, hm ... I'm sure you spot easily in 93.2% of the cases which are the features of an item which
are not specific to that item (within the series we use to call edition) :-)
> What would this mean in reality: most information currently
> in the manifestation would go to the item, and then when
> processing the item (using xml, rdf, RDBMS or whatever) any
> information that is the same as in another item would be
> replaced with a URI to that information. As far as displays
> of the "group of items" goes, that could be left to the
> discretion of each database manager.
I still believe that the "common factor" (of the items) conventionally called "manifestation" is
useful, from a practical point of view.
For instance, suppose we produce the metadata using the RDF formalism. Let's say we have 4 nice
L1: THE IMITATION OF CHRIST
L2: BY Thomas A Kempis
L3: THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY
L4: November 5, 1940
and suppose you have in the catalogue 3 items a, b, c you decide to associate with these 4 literals.
a isbd:titleProper L1
a isbd:statementOfResponsibility L2
a isbd:publisher L3
a isbd:date L4
c isbd:date L4
... in totto 12 rdf:statements.
Now, suppose you notice the common factor of the 3 items and you "invent" an abstraction m, let's
call it "manifestation" (only for the sake of the discussion :-) and you produce the rdf:statemens:
m isbd:titleProper L1
m isbd:statementOfResponsibility L2
m isbd:publisher L3
m isbd:date L4
a frbr:exemplifies m
b frbr:exemplifies m
c frbr:exemplifies m
... in totto 7 rdf:statements.
In the first case you have n (items) x k (literals) statements and in the second case you have n + k
In a catalogue where n use to be 1 or 2, your solution is OK. But in a shared catalogue where n >> 2
> I think instituting something like this would make it far
> easier both for creating records and training, while
> everything would be much more accurate than what we have now.
Maybe for the edge cases. But for the usual ones, I don't think is that hard. Even my numismats
learn how to distinguish between the properties of an issue vs. the properties of an exemplar (coin)
More information about the open-bibliography