Does that mean that Bibframe over SRU could follow a variety of
ontologies, and a preference of one ontology could be enforced by the
SRU client?
At the moment I assume the semantic model at http://bibframe.org/vocab/
will still be the only valid ontology for Bibframe.
Rendering Bibframe to JSON or XML according to a schema (or rewriting
the XML result to JSON like in
http://oclc.org/developer/content/marc-json-draft-2010-03-11 )
must not be confused with RDF graph serialization which is declared by
content type application/rdf+xml or application/ld+json. The output of
the latter looks like JSON or XML but the underlying semantic model is
definitely not the same.
In Z39.50, and SRU, server and client have to agree upon an common
semantic model, to make sure the interpretation of the data is the same
(to recognize "bibliographic data"). Given that Bibframe in SRU means
the transport of RDF graphs from server to client, the semantic model is
already in place. The formal description is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ and the onotology is also transported
embedded in the RDF graph, by using references to
http://bibframe.org/vocab/
With Bibframe, walking the same rendering path as in MARC would lead to
some more challenges, just to mention there is no more a concept of
records in Bibframe, so the sequential order of SRU records does not
naturally match the concept of Bibframe resource URIs organized in RDF
graphs.
Jörg
>>> Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am 20.02.2014 um 18.37 Uhr in
Nachricht
<019e01cf2e62$6d00dec0$47029c40$@gov>:
> "So, for Bibframe data, it's all in place."
>
>
>
> You mean by "bibframe data", I presume, that you've stored your data
as
> bibframe and are prepared to supply it as bibframe, just tell me
whether you
> want it in xml, json, etc. Fine, that’s one model.
>
>
>
> But that isn't the model I'm talking about: you have bibliographic
data, how
> it is stored is unspecified, and you are prepared to supply it
according to a
> variety of schemas/ontologies (mods, marcxml, bibframe, modsrdf,
....).
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
>
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jörg Prante
>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:49 AM
>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>> Subject: Re: Antw: Re: SRU recordPacking and JSON
>
>>
>
>> RDF is a model, the semantics of RDF statements are defined in
>
>> ontologies, and not a priori in MIME content types.
>
>>
>
>> It would be tedious to register for every RDF ontology a MIME
content
>
>> type, if you look at <http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/>
> http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/ there can be
>
>> plenty of them in just one document, and there are no limits.
>
>>
>
>> One fundamental concept of RDF ontologies is the open world
assumption
>
>> (OWA).
>
>>
>
>> The recipe for RDF graph retrieval with OWA is: send a request to a
web
>
>> service (like SRU), ask for content negotiation for your favorite
RDF
>
>> serialization with the Accept header, read the response, parse it
>
>> accordingly to the Content-Type header, iterate through the RDF
graph
>
>> (the triples), and optionally, the "follow-your-nose" principle
takes
>
>> you to everywhere else on the Web, for example, the ontologies you
want
>
>> to examine, or other links. And Bibframe is just one ontology of
many
>
>> in an RDF graph serialization.
>
>>
>
>> So, for Bibframe data, it's all in place.
>
>>
>
>> Best,
>
>>
>
>> Jörg
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> >>> "LeVan,Ralph" < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> schrieb
am 20.02.2014
> um 16.30 Uhr
>
>> in Nachricht
>
>> <
>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>om>
[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>om> > m>:
>
>> > Nope.
>
>> >
>
>> > RDF is much more syntax than semantics. It's triples. It
doesn't
>
>> tell you
>
>> > any more about what you're going to get than asking for XML does.
>
>> >
>
>> > Surely you don't think that the triples would be identical if you
>
>> asked for
>
>> > schemadotorg+rdf or foaf+rdf or rda+rdf or vnd.oclc.viaf+rdf.
Those
>
>> are
>
>> > schemas with completely different semantics, even if they use an
>
>> identical
>
>> > syntax.
>
>> >
>
>> > Yes, there will need to be some agreement on how you ask a site
for
>
>> Bibframe
>
>> > data. Probably a topic for the Bibframe folks.
>
>> >
>
>> > Ralph
>
>> >
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>
>> > From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
>
>> > [ <mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of
> Jörg Prante
>
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:40 AM
>
>> > To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
>
>> > Subject: Antw: Re: SRU recordPacking and JSON
>
>> >
>
>> > There is no need for a Bibframe experimental media type. Bibframe
>
>> model
>
>> > is a subset of RDF. So we already have
>
>> >
>
>> > application/rdf+xml
>
>> > application/ld+json
>
>> > text/n3
>
>> > text/turtle
>
>> >
>
>> > <http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml>
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
>
>> >
>
>> > <http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6838#section-4.2>
> http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc6838#section-4.2
>
>> >
>
>> > "While it is possible for a given media type to be assigned
>
>> additional
>
>> > names, the use of different names to identify the same media type
is
>
>> > discouraged."
>
>> >
>
>> > Jörg
>
>> >
>
>> >>>> "LeVan,Ralph" < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> schrieb
am 20.02.2014
> um 3.00 Uhr
>
>> in
>
>> > Nachricht
>
>> >
>
>> <
>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>om>
[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]
>om> > m>:
>
>> >> No, there is the concept of experimental media types that can be
>
>> used
>
>> > between
>
>> >> consenting adults.
>
>> > <http://www.mhonarc.org/~ehood/MIME/2046/rfc2046.html#6>
> http://www.mhonarc.org/~ehood/MIME/2046/rfc2046.html#6.
>
>> >> So, X-application/bibframe+xml;q=0.00 :) No need to seek
standards
>
>> > approval
>
>> >> for that.
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > --
>
>> > Jörg Prante
>
>> > hbz, Gruppe Portale
>
>> > - Digitale Bibliothek und Online-Fernleihe - Postfach 270451,
50510
>
>> > Köln, Deutschland Telefon +49-221-40075-156, Fax
+49-221-40075-190
>
>> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
<http://www.hbz-nrw.de>
> http://www.hbz-nrw.de
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> Jörg Prante
>
>> hbz, Gruppe Portale
>
>> - Digitale Bibliothek und Online-Fernleihe - Postfach 270451, 50510
>
>> Köln, Deutschland Telefon +49-221-40075-156, Fax +49-221-40075-190
>
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]
<http://www.hbz-nrw.de>
> http://www.hbz-nrw.de
--
Jörg Prante
hbz, Gruppe Portale
- Digitale Bibliothek und Online-Fernleihe -
Postfach 270451, 50510 Köln, Deutschland
Telefon +49-221-40075-156, Fax +49-221-40075-190
[log in to unmask]
http://www.hbz-nrw.de
|