On Dec 6, 2007 10:35 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> As I've said before,[1] I think
> FRBR works better if we focus more on the relationships between all of
> the entities and less on the WEMI hierarchy.
Amen! Just the fact that trained professional librarians can't agree
easily on what is what is a *huge* hint to why there is something
wrong with the current model.
> I also think that the
> relationships are more valuable to users than the WEMI boxes.
There's two ways of looking at this, though ; *everything* are
relationships (and there are no "things"), or there are "things" and
relationships between things. I actually like (and think) as if
everything are relationships, and the main reason for that (after
years of struggling with our "things" based world) is that even things
we think we agree are those things turn out not to be those things in
practicality. A few examples ;
- Jane is a person
- This is a book
- Jim wrote that book
- Jane is married to Jim
In normal speak we can find some things here ; Jane, Jim, person,
book, marriage. Jane and Jim are names. Person is a human being. Being
married infer from marriage. But note that all of these things are
made up of smaller things, so the people have heads and arms and legs,
and inside those there are blood vessels, bone, heart, brains, and
inside those there are cells and biological structures, and inside
those there are proteins, vitamins, minerals, water, and inside all of
those there are atoms, and inside those ... You get the picture.
Now, just bare with me for a moment, because I know that we all know
this. I feel the need to point out that the semantics of language and
human cognition indeed is not compatible with typing things into
"things". A thing is just an abstract container we use for purpose and
for simplifying complexities so our brains can figure them out, and we
can point to Lakoff's excellent "Women, Fire and dangerous things"
(which I dare you all to read!!) to dig into category thinking and
language to find that some things are more those things than other
things. Example ;
1. Chair
2. Stool
3. Swivel chair
We find that 1. is the most "chair" out of all those chairs, and is
known as a basic category. The flaw (or, induced flaw, as it really
is) is that the most basic "chair", the very thing that defines a
category, in itself can be further broken down into smaller bits, but
at *that* point the definition of _purpose_ changes. Basically, when
you take "feet" off a "chair", it stops being a "chair".
(Interestingly, the older you get, the harder you can find an items
basic category. Children are experts in this field!)
So, back to FRBR. At what point does the basic categorical "work"
change to a different categorical "expression"? They are two very
similar "things" where even "purpose" is a bit ambiguous.
> That
> doesn't mean throwing away FRBR and going back to Panizzi's rules. It's
> not all or nothing -- FRBR should be seen as a working model to be acted
> on, not gospel to be defended.
We certainly need to work on it. We all don't agree on it, but that
doesn't mean its value isn't gold. I believe it is truly gold and
certainly a humongous correct step forward, but it does need polish
and refinement. It's still largely unproven in a real context after
all these years, and maybe that's where the confusion comes in ;
something that old surely has tenure enough to be correct?
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 19:02:15 EST