LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: BibFrame and Linked Data: Identifiers

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 24 Jul 2014 03:00:37 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Am 24.07.2014 00:36, schrieb Simeon Warner:

> URI Identifier Use Case 1: "I want to assert that another URI identifies the
> same resource and have this work well in LOD". In this case owl:sameAs is
> clearly the useful/practical way to implement and follows common LOD practice
> (as Rob suggests).
> 
> URI Identifier Use Case 2: "I want to describe the origins, provenance, etc. of
> a URI (in a similar way to other forms of identifier)". This use case is not
> supported by simple owl:sameAs suggestion. The problem is how to talk about URIs
> because in RDF they aren't first class citizens, they are simply ways to talk
> about resources. How can we associate the provenance properties that a
> bf:Identifier has with a URI without generating bad semantics? I think that a
> robust answer must use some kind of reification --- the way out of the "the
> first rule of identifier club is that you can't talk about identifiers" conundrum.
> 
> I'll use an example from Thomas and Rob to think about these 2 use cases:
> 
> On 7/17/14 12:17 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> Thomas Berger wrote:
>>> Now consider
>>> <http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person;
>>>   bf:identifier [
>>>     bf:schema "VIAF";
>>>     bf:identifierValue "195531823";
>>>     bf:identifierValueURI <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823>
>>>   ].
> 
> It seems that here the bf:identifierValueURI is a sleight of hand for
> bf:identifies (inverse of bf:identifier) and thus implies (though doesn't
> explicitly include):
> 
>> Or ... <http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> owl:sameAs
>> <http://viaf.org/viaf/195531823> .
> 
> The bf:identifierValueURI form is both somewhat circular and hard to compute on
> without bf-specific understanding. It thus doesn't serve use case 1 well.

The intention was /not/ to imply owl:sameAs. Equivalence is asserted only
within the context of the identifier scheme given.

The example I tried to supply was to connect an FRBR-aware manifestation record
with some "naive" description mixing work, manifestation and item level
properties (as one would probably find in a museum database):
Operating with owl:sameAs would be extremely problematic since the entities
within the two datasets never match. ISBNs as identifiers however still work,
since restriction to those aspects spanned up by "ISBN semantics" is
implicit.

I still have no opinion whether IRIs or stringifications of IRIs are
better suited for use case 1. But we have to keep in mind that for
some identifiers (e.g. ORCID, NBN-URNs for born-digital materials) an
"URI form" is the most official and preferred form of citing and
bf:Identifiers have to cope with them too, not only with plain old numbers.

As for use case 2 I see much similarity with the classification discussion
which took place today: The graph for an identifier (seen as an abstract
"concept" like places in classification systems) should contain a
reference URI for the scheme/system it is originating from and one or
more "manifestations" / labels one may encounter - strings or URIs.
Both together determine exactly this identifier (I'm avoiding to speak about
identifying the identifier) even in the case of anonymous nodes. This
kind of "indirect speech" also should prevent the conflation of identifier
URIs and resource URIs in cases where I add more provenance
information to a given bf:identifier.

There might however two use cases hidden in that scenario:
a) I might want to add statements to the identifier like 'another form
for the abstract isbn "x" is "978-y"'
b) Or I want to make a statement about one specific form: 'the form "978-y"
is utilized by the "z" dataset'

If a bf:Identifier is only allowed to carry exactly one value, then
there is no difference, but then I don't see a way to express fundamental
equivalences like that of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 /within/ one bf:Identifier
graph (and expressing it with several graphs would open a gap between
them as wide as the gap between ISBN and OCLC number - completely unrelated
as identifiers and only evidence shows that they are always incurring at the
same resource)

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlPQWrUACgkQYhMlmJ6W47PbYQQAjafs18Wjiz4h1FhqNKYZnNzC
xQJshW7ChwY7fKSopo993A06hXJcicgA2r1md5K9zFAGM65ZvwkHfXD3aqbja8LP
MCVuiLKveNrLxR6rDr9NEQ3+TxGs5Lex4PghSTIF6G1QyzMJtP+XR7ytJEytt0Cn
VsUsSqleFYFDH8LRynI=
=kiLr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager