Issue 593: E-vote: LRMoo, deprecation of R10 has member

ID: 
593
Starting Date: 
2022-04-04
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Current Proposal: 

Post by Pat Riva (4 Apr 2022)

Hello all yet again!
 

Property R10 has member (is member of) was discussed in October 2021, during SIG51. And had been discussed a few times prior to that. However, no vote was taken at SIG51 and the decision was deferred. We ran out of time to return to the discussion during SIG52 in February. It is time to take a vote and move on.

 

The proposal is to deprecated R10 has member (is member of) which relates two instances of F1 Work. This property is from FRBRoo where it served to gather and link instances of F14 Individual Work into F15 Complex Works. All these subclasses of F1 Work have been deprecated in LRMoo, and furthermore, R10 does not not correspond to any relationship in LRMer.

 

If the deprecation of R10 is accepted, then it is necessary to adjust R67 has part (forms part of), linking an instance of F1 Work to a larger instance of F1 Work, by removing the final paragraph and modifying its superproperty.

 

Vote Yes if you support deprecating R10 (and adjusting R67 in consequence), vote No if you do not, preferably with an explanation. Indicate VETO if you consider this issue needs to be discussed at a SIG.

 

Please vote by April 10 and I will summarize for the list.

 

a) Current definition of R10 has member (is member of)

 

Domain: F1 Work

Range: F1 Work

Superproperty of: F1 Work. R67 has part (is part of): F1 Work

Subproperty of: E89 Propositional Object. P148 has component (is component of): E89 Propositional Object

Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note: This property associates an instance of F1 Work with another instance of F1 Work that forms a part of it. This property is transitive. An instance of F1 Work may neither directly nor indirectly be a member of itself. Instances of F1 Work that are not members of one another may not share a common member.

 

b) Current definition of R67 has part (forms part of)

Domain: F1 Work

Range: F1 Work

Subproperty of: F1 Work. R10 has member (is member of): F1 Work

Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note: This property associates an instance of F1 Work with another instance of F1 Work that forms part of it in a complementary role to other sibling parts, conceived at some point in time to form together a logical whole, such as the parts of a trilogy. This property is transitive.

In contrast, the property R10 has member (is member of) may, for instance, also associate with the overall instance of F1 Work translations, adaptations and other derivative works that do not form a logical whole with sibling parts.

 

Changes for R67 if R10 is deprecated :

a) Modify superproperty to be the superproperty of the deprecated R10:

Subproperty of: E89 Propositional Object. P148 has component (is component of): E89 Propositional Object

b) Delete the 2nd paragraph of the scope note.

In contrast, the property R10 has member (is member of) may, for instance, also associate with the overall instance of F1 Work translations, adaptations and other derivative works that do not form a logical whole with sibling parts.

 

 
Pat Riva

Post by Pierre Choffe (4 Apr 2022)

I vote YES

Pierre
 

Post by Martin (40 Apr 2022)

Dear All,

I vote VETO.

Reason: The proposed scope note for R67 will still contain: "conceived at some point in time to form together a logical whole". This means to my opinion, that by deprecating R10, an instance of Work cannot evolve over time into some subsets that, following one group of librarians, form a Work in its own right, and following another group of librarians, form only expressions of the same work. This implies absolute, global decisions about instances of Work, rather breaking the ability to integrate such points of view.
To my opinion, if we perceive the Work level as an aggregation point to serve user interests, it must be relatively unconstrained to introduce a work level. This was also argued for by Richard Smiraglia.

 It would become even more complicated, when, e.g., a new series of R67 related sibling works would appear, because the two wholes can no more form part of a "super" work, because the two were never "conceived at some point in time to form together a logical whole".

Obviously, the Work construct, which admits an evolution like a living body, but without loosing any shape it had in the past, cannot be structured based on a simultaneity concept of parthood alone, as I have argued repeatedly in the past. It must necessarily admit temporal parts and synchronous parts, and all mixed forms of asynchronous strands. This, to my memory, was the reason for designing R10, and not the Individual-Complex Work relation only. I think there must be reasonable examples proving that R67 alone will not be able to support more complex forms of evolving works. It might quite well be, that the current examples are borderline cases distracting from the real substance.

Defining a non-synchronous parthood instead of having a generalization with R10 (i.e., not conceived at some point in time to form together a logical whole) is a dangerous business, because it would be a complement.

I think this must be properly discussed.

All the best,

Martin