Hiya,
Diane I. Hillmann <dih1_at_cornell.edu> wrote:
> For the record, FRBR is registered as properties here:
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html These are the 'official'
> version, under review by IFLA, expected to be approved this summer.
>
> RDA is also available here: http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm These
> are currently under review as well, but the process is a little less clear
> and the timetable a bit fuzzier. They are, however, usable as is by those
> who wish to use them.
Don't feel very persistent those identifiers? (And self-referential a
number of them) I guess that's a minor nag, though. Is there
collaboration involved? Wiki pages? Anyone can update the records, or
the normal mode of a working group that unleashes their work when done
(or in stages)? Easier navigation? thoughts on easier ways to grasp
the models proposed? It also feels you're mixing up several levels of
ontology here, but I'd have to really dig in to grasp what's going on.
Hmm, over 230 elements and properties (relationships) in the upper RDA
ontology alone. That's supposed to be easier to understand, right? :)
How many elements in total when you add in a few often-used vocabs?
You really need to have some excellent tools that can work with this
level of complexity. Who's doing that part?
> This IS the 'serious attempt' you spoke about--we're not just playin'
> around.
Yes, it looks serious, it certainly is good stuff that can be reused,
*provided* the underlying models are good (any good graphs or maps of
those models anywhere?). What efforts are being made to make
catalogers and librarians understand what is going on here?
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Thu Jun 24 2010 - 07:24:08 EDT