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:

Simeon Warner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:36:12 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

Having caught up on this very illuminating thread, I think Ray was onto
something when he clearly separated the URI and non-URI cases:

On Jul 16, 2014, at 5:39 PM, "Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think the advice is:
>
> (1) don't use a URI to identify a bf:Identifier.  Treat it as a blank
> node.
>
> (2) Only a non-URI identifier (e.g. isbn) should be treated a
> bf:Identifier.  (I.e. a URI  should not be treated as a bf:Identifer.
> Thus the property bf:uri should be eliminated.)

Aside from discussions of how useful or not it is to have non-URI 
identifiers, it seems there is little debate that something like the 
bf:Identifer way of talking about non-URI identifier is fine.

For the URI case I think the thread conflates two use cases that can't 
be supported in the same way:

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.

One could argue that the bf:schema and bf:identifierValue properties are 
redundant in the example above (implied by the URI itself). However, I 
don't think that argument could be made for other predicates such as 
bf:identifierAssigner, bf:identifierStatus so let's imagine a slightly 
different example (following Thomas's form):

<http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person ;
   bf:identifier [
     a bf:Identifier ;
     bf:identifierAssigner "Simeon" ;
     bf:identifierValueURI <http://example.com/people/kc>
   ].

where the bf:identifierAssigner is not redundant and cannot be expressed 
in the simple owl:sameAs form.

Does this form meet use case 2? I think it does because although the RDF 
spec does not include the notion of reification of a Resource, it 
follows the rdfs pattern that is blessed for the reification of a 
statement [2], where the correspondence is:

rdf:Statement class <-> bf:Identifier class
rdf:subject predicate <-> bf:identifierValueURI predicate

But now, let's take a step back and look at the current bf spec with 
bf:identifierValue [3]:

<http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person ;
   bf:identifier [
     a bf:Identifier ;
     bf:identifierAssigner "Simeon" ;
     bf:identifierValue "http://example.com/people/kc"
   ].

I can feel the knee-jerk "yuck" to see a URI in quotes but this is 
actually a very clean reification of the identifier. None other than 
TimBL in 2004 suggested use of a literal form for a URI in reification 
[4] and included the notion of reification of URIs as "Symbols" (though 
the community has not gone that way). A benefit of this form over the 
bf:identifierValueURI form (or, say, reification of an owl:sameAs 
statement) is that the quoted value is immune to expansion or reduction 
of owl:sameAs equivalences in a processing/query/inference system. I 
think this form meets use case 2 well though it is terrible for use case 1.

It is ugly and I think I'm going to get some flak for even mentioning 
this... but I wonder whether to meet the two use cases of both useful 
LOD _and_ describing URI provenance then one needs to do both owl:sameAs 
and something like the current bf:identifierValue? Can you say data 
duplication:

<http://example.org/persons/kcoyle> a bf:person ;
   owl:sameAs <http://example.com/people/kc> ;
   bf:identifier [
     a bf:Identifier ;
     bf:identifierAssigner "Simeon" ;
     bf:identifierValue "http://example.com/people/kc"
   ].

Fire away,
Simeon


P.S. Then, of course, there is the question of how "same-as" an 
owl:sameAs really is [5], but we can leave that for another day ;-)

[1] http://bibframe.org/vocab/Identifier.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_reificationvocab
[3] http://bibframe.org/vocab/identifierValue.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Reify.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws21

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