LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


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

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  December 2010

MODS December 2010

Subject:

Re: madsrdf: Question about subject

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:16:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (154 lines)

Dear Karen,

I try to take you questions in turn...


"1)if you have, for example, a simple geographic property, how do you  
know if it is a simple subject heading or something that can only be  
used in a complex subject? A less ambiguous example might be a  
temporalElement, something like "1940-1945." This probably cannot be  
used as a subject heading by itself. Is there a rule in the OWL data  
that indicates this? (I believe that I am referring to the  
free-floating subdivisions that cannot be used alone, but there may be  
other such subdivision types in LCSH as well.)"

Let's use this example:

Baltic States--History--1940-1991

You're right, no independent record exists for the Temporal component of this pre-coordinated heading.  In the MADS/RDF model "1940-1991" still becomes a Temporal Authority but it's basically baked into the data.  It is accessible as a blank node and not referenceable as a first-class resource.  Take the following, truncated RDF/XML snippet:

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<Authority rdf:about="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh92006091" xmlns="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/mads/2010/11#">
 	<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/mads/2010/11#ComplexSubject"/>
 	<authoritativeLabel>Baltic States--History--1940-1991</authoritativeLabel>
 	<componentList rdf:parseType="Collection">
 	 	<Geographic rdf:about="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85011369"/>
 	 	<Topic rdf:about="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85061212"/>
 	 	<Temporal rdf:nodeID="a1940-1991">
 	 	 	<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/mads/2010/11#Authority"/>
 	 	 	<authoritativeLabel>1940-1991</authoritativeLabel>
 	 	 	<elementList rdf:parseType="Collection">
 	 	 	 	<TemporalElement>
 	 	 	 	 	<elementValue>1940-1991</elementValue>
 	 	 	 	</TemporalElement>
 	 	 	</elementList>
 	 	</Temporal>
 	</componentList>
</Authority>
</rdf:RDF>

Note that two of the components ("Baltic States" and "History") that make up this particular pre-coordinated heading are identified with HTTP URIs found in the componentList.  You can follow those URIs to ID and see that standalone records exist for "Baltic States" and "History."  But, you'll note that the component for "1940-1991" is basically fully expressed in the above snippet because no record exists for this particular heading.  If this were loaded into a system, "1940-1991" would essentially become a *local* Temporal Authority.  


"2)Isn't it the case that a variant heading could be composed of a  
variant simple type in position 1 followed by authoritative simple  
types in the subsequent positions? (and perhaps even an authoritative  
entry in position one and a variant entry in a subsequent position?)"

Yes.  In fact, this will often be the case with NameTitle records, where the Name exists as a distinct Authority but there are many variations of a title.


"3)What does the "and/or" indicate in the above section? What does it  
mean to have two or more authoritative AND two or more variant records  
in a complex record?"

It means that a ComplexType could be composed of two or more Variant records or two or more Authority records or some combination of Variant and Authority records.


Best,

Kevin

________________________________________
From: Metadata Object Description Schema List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 08:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MODS] madsrdf: Question about subject

Quoting Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>:

)
>
> The MADS/RDF Vocabulary Description
> <http://www.loc.gov/standards/mads/rdf/>states  (§2.3) that
> "ComplexType describes [...] types by aggregating two or
> more Authority and/or two or more Variant records each of a
> SimpleType". Thus, it is not possible for a ComplexType to have a component
> list with only one member.

Simon thanks for finding the relevant section. Now I have a couple of
other questions:

1) if you have, for example, a simple geographic property, how do you
know if it is a simple subject heading or something that can only be
used in a complex subject? A less ambiguous example might be a
temporalElement, something like "1940-1945." This probably cannot be
used as a subject heading by itself. Is there a rule in the OWL data
that indicates this? (I believe that I am referring to the
free-floating subdivisions that cannot be used alone, but there may be
other such subdivision types in LCSH as well.)

2) Isn't it the case that a variant heading could be composed of a
variant simple type in position 1 followed by authoritative simple
types in the subsequent positions? (and perhaps even an authoritative
entry in position one and a variant entry in a subsequent position?)

3) What does the "and/or" indicate in the above section? What does it
mean to have two or more authoritative AND two or more variant records
in a complex record?

I suspect that there is something buried deep in the OWL definitions
that may clear this up, but like my first question, I haven't found it.

kc


>
> However, this same quotation is a good example of some of the fundamental
> confusions that render the ontology as a whole inconsistent.
>
>    - A restriction is given in the text but not stated in the ontology (that
>    component list must be a List with at least two members, and that each
>    member must be a SimpleType and either an Authority or a Variant)l. This
>     restriction can be expressed in OWL.
>    - Authority and Variant  are disjoint (one is a subclass of skos:Concept;
>    the other a subclass of skosxl:Label). It is not clear what
> intuitive class
>    corresponds to "Concept or Label".
>    - The examples that use a componentList contain members that are
>    SimpleTypes but which are not marked as  either being instances
> Authority or
>    of Variant.
>    - It is not intuitively clear what is denoted by the aggregation of a
>    Label with a Concept.
>    - The style of specification makes it difficult to express rules for the
>    order of subdivisions that are part of the SCM, making it less useful to
>    organizations following LC cataloging and policy standards (for
> example, LC)
>
> The specification fails to capture any of the semantics of coordinated
> headings. There are some semantics that differ  depending on whether one is
> applying a faceted or subdivision interpretation to these coordinate
> headings, but much of the semantics is common to both, and none are
> captured.
>
> Simon
> p.s.
> I would avoid using the word
> *property<http://philpapers.org/browse/property-nominalism>
> * here, as it has pre-existing Ontological meaning. §2.2 of MADS/RDF shows
> an  eliminativist approach to Properties that would be significant were it
> not clear from the text that it it is un-intentional as well as
> un-intensional.
>



--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

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

December 2023
November 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 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
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager