10 thoughts on “FRBR outside the box

  1. Fortunately, the FRBR model is implemented as a Semantic Web ontology, see http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core# (there are further approaches that make use of the FRBR model in Semantic Web ontologies). Hence, on could easily apply the “4 levels of abstraction” of the FRBR model in an open Linked Data environment, and, thereby, utilising further Semantic Web ontologies, e.g., the Bibliography Ontology (http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/), that enables, for example, the description of document parts (chapters etc.), or the Music Ontology (http://purl.org/ontology/mo/), which applies (amongst others) the FRBR model on the music domain.
    The item level becomes interesting when starting the journey from a user perspective, e.g., a user’s own book collection (possible use cases, e.g., “tell me, where I can found book xy”, or “show me all MP3 files that belong to that specific song” (duplicate finder)). So I think the item level is still important.

    1. Thanks ‘zazi’. It’s great that there are FRBR and BIBO ontologies. However, libraries are still bound to existing library systems and system vendors, and they’re not going to implement linked data in their systems for some time (see Carl Grant’s post http://commentary.exlibrisgroup.com/2011/08/linked-data-model-from-librarianvendor.html).

      We need to convince library managers that they need to adopt linked data by giving them a number of real killer apps first.

  2. Check out

    http://www.freebase.com/view/en/the_diary_of_a_young_girl
    http://www.freebase.com/view/en/millennium_trilogy

    for more comprehensive models of your examples, including multiple stage and film adaptations, translations, etc. Not a “complete” model by any means, but it does cover more of the interesting things.

    Two things I disagree with:

    – There will never be a “completely digital” world. We’ll always want a way to refer to real world objects, including books.

    – Libraries will never reestablish their role as “gateways” (ie gatekeepers) to information and that’s a good thing. We need fewer gatekeepers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *