1 / 20

Subject relationships in FRBR OO and their implication on CIDOC CRM

Subject relationships in FRBR OO and their implication on CIDOC CRM. CIDOC CRM SIG Meeting Edinburgh, 9-12 July 2007. 1. Subject relationships in CIDOC CRM. is subclass of. P67 refers to (is referred to by). E73 Information Object. E1 CRM Entity. is subproperty of.

maite-phelps
Download Presentation

Subject relationships in FRBR OO and their implication on CIDOC CRM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Subject relationships in FRBROOand their implication on CIDOC CRM CIDOC CRM SIG Meeting Edinburgh, 9-12 July 2007

  2. 1. Subject relationships in CIDOC CRM is subclass of P67 refers to (is referred to by) E73 Information Object E1 CRM Entity is subproperty of P129 is about (is subject of) is subclass of is subclass of P138 represents (has representation) E36 Visual Item is subclass of P70 documents (is documented in) E31 Document is subclass of P71 lists (is listed in) E32 Authority Document E55 Type

  3. 2. Subject relationships in FRBRER is subclass of is about (is subject of) Work [FRBR Entity] is realized in (realizes) is subclass of Expression NB: “is about” covers both actual subject relationships and representation relationships

  4. 3. Products of the mind in CIDOC CRM and FRBRER E28 Conceptual Object Work covers both concepts and expressions of concepts “commonality of content” between various sets of signs (= conceptual aspect of products of the mind?) is a E73 Information Object No subsumption relationship! is limited to reproducible expressions of concepts Expression is a is a a set of signs through which concepts are made perceptible and can be communicated E33 Linguistic Object E31 Document is limited to linguistic expressions of concepts is actually the content of a document No disjointness

  5. 4. Products of the mind in FRBROO E28 Conceptual Object is a F1 Work is a “a sum of concepts” E73 Information Object No subsumption (should be declared as disjoint) is a F2 Expression “identifiable immaterial items […] [with] objectively recognisable structures. […] Signs”

  6. E28 Conceptual Object is a Work [FRBR Entity] = is about P129 is about E73 Information Object E1 CRM Entity is a NO HARMONIZATION IS POSSIBLE!!! Expression = 5. And now, the trouble… F1 Work F2 Expression

  7. P129 is about (is subject of) is subproperty of [FRBROO Entity] R.. is about (is subject of) F1 Work Disjointness F2 Expression 6. Martin once proposed the following: E1 CRM Entity E28 Conceptual Object anything that goes through a human mind ? a well-defined and recognizable and identifiable sum of concepts E73 Information Object expressions of concepts

  8. E62 String, E73 Information Object, E41 Appellation CIDOC CRM SIG Meeting Edinburgh, 9-12 July 2007

  9. Current distinctions in CIDOC CRM E1 CRM Entity E59 Primitive Value E62 String E77 Persistent Item E41 Appellation E70 Thing No explicit disjointness  Any instance of E73, E41 and E62 can also be declared as an instance of the other two classes E73 Information Object

  10. E62 String • E62 String • “… free text strings, bitmaps, vector graphics, etc.” • only purpose in the model: as range of P3 has note (and its subproperties) • covers therefore “all informal descriptions about an object that cannot be expressed in terms of CRM constructs” (scope note for P3) • But any “free text string, bitmap, vector graphic, etc.” can also be modelled as an instance of E73 Information Object •  Do we still need E62 String at all? Or could we keep it (for the sake of P3), but as a subclass of E73, not E59?

  11. E62 String as a subclass of E73 Information Object? • This would acknowledge the fact that all informal notes are man-made (E71)!! • This would make E62 inherit the following properties: • P106 is composed of (allowing thus to decompose informal notes into parts) • P140B was attributed by (allowing to document who assigned an informal note to an object) • P94B was created by (allowing to document the circumstances under which informal notes come into being) • P67 refers to (allowing to document references made in informal notes to other objects)

  12. E41 Appellation • E41 Appellation • its instances can most often also be instances of E33 Linguistic Object • its subclass E35 Title is the only one that is also declared as a subclass of E33 Linguistic Object, although not all titles are linguistic (e.g. Anthony Braxton’s titles) • its instances can also be instances of E36 Visual Item: • … or even gestures (in sign language): • … or just combinations of signs (see examples for E42 Object Identifier)

  13. E41 Appellation • E41 Appellation • In all cases, it seems that any instance of E41 Appellation can be regarded as a set of signs • Now, this is the definition for F2 Expression, which is declared as a subclass of E73 Information Object •  I would tend to regard E41 Appellation as a subclass of E73 Information Object (which is already the case for its subclass E35 Title) rather than just a subclass of E77 Persistent Item

  14. E41 Appellation as a subclass of E73 Information Object? • This would acknowledge the fact that all Appellations are man-made (E71)!! • This would make E41 inherit the following properties: • P106 is composed of(allowing thus to decompose appellations into parts) • P94B was created by(allowing to document the circumstances under which appellations come into being) • P67 refers to(allowing e.g. to document the origin of nicknames) • P128B is carried by(allowing us to document where we found evidence for an appellation)

  15. My proposal E73 Information Object E62 String E41 Appella-tion E36 VisualItem E31 Docu-ment E29 Design orProcedure E33 LinguisticObject Their instances can also be declared as instances of E33 (some appellations and all textual informal notes can be translated)

  16. A modelfor constructing appellations CIDOC CRM SIG Meeting Edinburgh, 9-12 July 2007

  17. A model for constructing appellations • FRBROO developed a model for the process of creating uniform appellations based on “natural” appellations • Perhaps this model would be helpful in the CIDOC CRM context too?

  18. A model for constructing appellations F16 IdentifierRule E13 AttributeAssignment R52 used rule (was rule used in) E41 Appellation is a = R26 used constituent (was used in) F13 Name F33 IdentifierAssignment R51 consists of (forms part of) R24 assigned to (was assigned by) is a R25 assigned (was assigned by) P1B identifies F14 Identifier P1B identifies E1 CRM Entity

  19. Example F14 Identifier Leonardo, da Vinci, 1452-1519. Mona Lisa instance: instance: instance: instance: F13 Name E50 Date E35 Title R25 assigned R26 used constituent R26 used constituent R26 used constituent F16 IdentifierRule F33 IdentifierAssignment R52 used rule (was rule used in) instance: (AACR2R) F28 BibliographicAgency P14 carried out by instance:(Library of Congress)

  20. Note • If CIDOC CRM SIG declares E41 Appellation as a subclass of E73 Information Object, the FRBROO WG does not need R51 consists of (forms part of) any more: P106 is composed of is enough.

More Related