Relationship with other models/vocabularies - especially LRMoo (was FRBRoo)

[aisaac]

I think the 'selling' of OpenWEMI would be easier if the position wrt other proposals (like Bibframe) was clarified. I'm especially thinking of LRMoo (previously FRBRoo), which is "approved as an IFLA standard in 2016"

I suppose that OpenWEMI classes and properties are super-classes or super-properties of the ones in other models/vocabularies, but having some confirmation would be useful in this discussion.

[kcoyle]

@aisaac Thanks. I could see this as a Cookbook section, and we could show how openwemi could be seen as semantically "super" to FRBR and LRM. The fact is that there is no direct relationship between openwemi and the library models, and having talked to various IFLA/LRM folks I know that they consider openwemi to be no less than heresy. (In fact, someone in one of those groups prevented an article by me about opening up WEMI from being accepted for publication - they are really adamantly against this.) I would like to do a theoretical view of openwemi and BIBFRAME but the huge size of the bibframe model, and the fact that they have eliminated most of the domains, makes this more difficult. I do think that the BIBFRAME relationship may be of more interest than the LRM relationship, mainly because BIBFRAME is in RDF and LRM does not (AFAIK) have a vocabulary serialization in use.

All of that said, I think it is very important that the main openwemi documentation keep a certain distance from the library applications, with the hope that it will then be more acceptable to non-library users. It is possible that a more extensive list of examples will be needed, though, to make clear to non-library folks how it can be used.

[aisaac]

@kcoyle thanks for the answer. I agree that it is wise to keep the distance with library application, but in fact clarifying the relationship is maybe best done by explaining what is the semantic link (and difference) between the OpenWEMI constructs and the others? It may not require a lot: the sentence saying "openwemi could be seen as semantically "super" to FRBR and LRM." would already do a lot, even if the alignment is not formally represented in the spec.

Regarding "LRM does not (AFAIK) have a vocabulary serialization in use." my question is whether LRMoo could be considered to be one? Since it is apparently approved by IFLA...". Again I'm not calling for a full mapping from/to LRMoo, but a general positioning may help.

[kcoyle]

I wonder if we shouldn't have a kind of side note or appendix titled "Relationship to Library Standards" where we could do this. There is also interest in an analysis of BIBFRAME vis-a-vis WEMI. We could refer to it in the body of the Primer with a link. If it gets to be too long, then I suggest a separate document in the openwemi space, again with reference from the main document.

[aisaac]

@kcoyle yes I think that such a note would answer the issue here!