Agenda for the upcoming 9th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization
meeting in Paris, France.
Meeting Date: |
14-16 March 2007 |
Meeting Place: |
On March 14: C2RMF (Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France), site Carrousel, Palais du Louvre – Porte des Lions, 14 Quai François Mitterrand, 75001 Paris (click here for a map)
On March 15-16: Bibliothèque nationale de France, site Cardinal de Richelieu, 58 rue de Richelieu, 75002 Paris (click here for a map) |
Organized By: |
Bibliothèque nationale de France |
| March 14, 2007: general theme: "To do list from 8th meeting and FRBR –FRAD" |
9:30-13:00 |
- examination of scope notes and examples suggested for newly declared classes and properties: F50 to F53 and R63-64, and the modifications suggested for R11
- problems with CRM superproperties (see appendix item 1)
- examination of what remains to be done from List of actions from Meeting #8 (see appendix item 2 )- presentation of function graphs
|
| 13:00-14:00 |
Lunch at the Louvre cafeteria |
14:00-17:30 |
Discussion about how to integrate FRAD into FRBRoo (beginning) (see appendix item 3. summary for discussion about FRAD ) |
March 15, 2007: general theme: "Performing Arts" |
| 9:30-10:00 |
Summary of Performing Arts discussion from October 06 (see reference no 8) |
| 10:00-10:30 |
IRCAM’s presentation about "The production process in FRBRoo" |
| 10:30-10:45 |
"About recording work", R. Smiraglia (see reference no 10) |
| 10:45-13:15 |
Discussion about performing arts on the basis of IRCAM’s presentation |
| 13:15-14:15 |
Lunch in restaurants in the BnF area |
| 14:15-17:30 |
Open for conclusions on performing arts and integration of FRAD |
| March 16, 2007: general theme: "Final conclusions and core FRBRoo" |
| 9:30-10:30 |
Final conclusion on FRAD integration |
| 10:30-13:15 |
How to define a "core FRBRoo"? |
| 13:15-14:15 |
Lunch in restaurants in the BnF area |
| 14:15-16:00 |
Continuation on FRBRoo and future actions |
Appendix |
Item 1
Comments on "FRBR, object-oriented definition and mapping to the FRBRER, (version 0.7.0)" |
| |
| Page 21: |
|
| |
"CLP57 should have number of parts (should be number of parts of): E60 Number"
There is no inverse property when the range is a primitive value |
|
| |
| Page 41: |
|
| |
Discuss if R2 should be related with R13 |
|
| |
| Page 42: |
|
| |
R3 should be inversed and should be subproperty of R9 |
|
| |
Page 43: |
|
|
| |
R7 is representative manifestation singleton for (has representative manifestation singleton) |
| |
Domain: |
F4 Manifestation Singleton |
| |
Range: |
F2 Expression |
| |
Superproperty of: |
|
| |
Subproperty of: |
P128 carries (is carried by) |
| |
Quantification: |
(0:n,0:n) |
| |
(we reverse the above property) |
|
| |
Page 49 |
|
| |
R25: in order to be P37 subproperty of R25 we made F42 Object identifier isA F14 Identifier |
|
| |
Page 50 |
|
| |
R26
Problem with P16: It couldn’t be super class of R26, because "Appellation" is not "Thing"
Question:
is the "Appellation" man made thing or can we use any "persistent item" in the narrow sense of using? |
|
| |
Page 55 |
|
| |
R51
Problem with P106: It couldn’t be super class of R51, because "Appellation" is not "Information Object" |
|
| |
Page 56 |
|
| |
R52
Problem with P33: It couldn’t be super class of R52, because "Attribute assignment" is not "Modification" |
|
| |
Page 59 |
|
| |
R62
Problem with R63: It couldn’t be super class of R62, because ??? |
|
| |
Issue 1 |
|
| |
R13, R33, R2 should goes to Work and not to Complex Work, to be discussed |
|
| |
Issue 2 |
|
| |
The lack of a class for “Publication Expression Creation” generates a fuzzy situation |
|
| Item 2 |
| |
| Reminder: |
List of actions from Meeting #8: |
| |
Steve Stead to elaborate a complete proposal for E42 Object Identifier and F14 Identifier.
Patrick Le Bœuf to provide draft scope notes for F50, F51, F52, R63 and R64, along with suggestions for better names and practical examples from the BnF’s databases in MARC format and EAD.
Trond Aalberg to provide examples for performing arts as well.
Mika Nyman and Richard Smiraglia to draft a proposal about the scope of F53 Recording Work (should cover taking photographs of museum objects as well).
Patrick Le Bœuf to redraft the scope note for R11 is composed of (forms part of) in order to make it clear that we distinguish between component relationship and inclusion.
Allen Renear to draft by the end of November an intended scope for approval of FRBRoo.
Martin Doerr to draft a current practical scope for FRBRoo.
Pat Riva and Patrick Le Bœuf to draft an extended scope for FRBRoo.
Trond Aalberg to draft the placement of the semantics of the attributes as part of a set of recommendations.
Martin Doerr to draft a text of definitions of the entities in FRBR as part of a set of recommendations.
Richard Smiraglia to give the IFLA FRSAR Working Group a tutorial on CIDOC CRM and aboutness relationships at one point during their meeting in December 8-15.
Trond Aalberg to examine what in FRAD can be mapped trivially to FRBRoo and what deserves discussion in our next meeting.
Maja Žumer and Pat Riva to compare scope notes between CIDOC CRM, FRBRoo, and FRAD.
Martin Doerr and Patrick Le Bœuf to provide graphics of FRBRoo in function groups. |
|
Item 3
Discussion about FRAD and FRBR |
| |
- Bibliographic entities are summarizing the things in FRBR
- We have to look at "Corporate body" ~ E74?
- we have to check the definitions given by FRANAR with the CRM definitions
- we have to see, if we have to introduce "family" to FRBRoo
- the FRANAR is divided in two groups - the entity group and the function group. We decided to talk about the function group first
- Name : is an appellation of any of the entities. They have three kinds of appellation
- Control Access Points : is superset of identifiers
- Martin said that control access point might be a relation not an entity or a generalization of identifier
- Rules and Agency are already modelled
- is it a library issue to model "persona" ? is it in Corporate body? This is incompatible with CRM Person which does not include persona. We should propose a CRM compatible for "persona".
- we have to do a 3-step checking
- check the definitions with CRM
- the block of concept, object to check with IFLA group
- to make mapping exercise for the rest
- do we want to apply a structure to conceptual object?
- is there something between information object, conceptual object and work?
- we have to examine 3 properties
- structurally composition
- aboutness
- ability to be carried
- do we need to make more ontological distinction in FRBR between Information object Conceptual object and Work?
- Martin said t hat he has the impression that is something between Work and Information Object
|
