I agree, but I think you've actually described the records aligning
fairly well to FRBR model entities, not representing just a part, for
the most part.
Entity record -> FRBR Person or Corporate Body
Geographical Record -> I think Place is a FRBR entity
But I guess 'biographical info' would really be part of the FRBR agent
(person or corporate body), not it's own entity.
So, yeah, what Ross said.
Jonathan
Ross Singer wrote:
> On 4/30/07, Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>> But I think there are technical methods for sharing just parts of FRBR
>> entity instances too, that could be very useful and shouldn't be written
>> off without consideration.
>>
> Exactly. For instance, there's a strong case that could be made that
> "names" or "publishers" or any variety of data that we currently keep
> in one record (and duplicate repeatedly, entering more and more
> possibilities for errors) could be distributed among several records:
> an entity record, a biographical record (for the author or subject,
> say), one or more geographical records (for publisher place or
> subject, perhaps) and the entity record merely links to the others or
> those records link to other records, etc.
>
> I think this is an incredibly important consideration given the
> interconnectedness of our data.
>
> -Ross.
>
--
Jonathan Rochkind
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
410.516.8886
rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Mon Apr 30 2007 - 08:20:58 EDT