Three of the four FRBR group 1 entity types are roles, not types

✍ Scribed by Allen H. Renear; David Dubin

• Publisher: Wiley (John Wiley & Sons)
• Year: 2008
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 125 KB
• Volume: 44
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0044-7870
• DOI: 10.1002/meet.1450440248

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

We examine the conceptual model of the “bibliographic universe” presented in IFLA's Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and argue, applying ontology design recommendations proposed by N. Guarino and C. Welty, that three of the four Group 1 entity types might be more accurately conceptualized as roles. We show how this approach may generalize the solution to a previously identified puzzle regarding the FRBR entity type of XML documents and speculate as to the sorts of entities that might take on these roles. This view of bibliographic entities, that they are roles that other things have in particular social contexts is consistent with Searle's notion of a cascade of social facts established through collective intentionality. We allow that even if our analysis is correct the current FRBR approach may be preferable as there are good reasons for “denormalized ontologies” that treat roles as types, particularly when the objective is not a general ontology, but a practical conceptual model.