|
Fair enough. Assume this real thing:
<http:www.worldcat.org/oclc/136259> a bf:Book .
Here's a Turtle mockup of the corresponding information resource:
@prefix void: <http://rdfs.org/ns/void#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix gen-ont: <http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont#> .
<http://www.worldcat.org/title/-/oclc/136259>
a gen-ont:ContentTypeGenericResource ;
dcterms:created "1970-12-16" ;
dcterms:creator <http://id.loc.gov/marc-org-code/DLC> ;
void:inDataset <http://purl.oclc.org/dataset/WorldCat> ;
bf:subject <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/136259> .
The former URI will 303 (See Other) redirect to the latter and the
latter will content-negotiate to a description of both.
Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
>
> Jeff, you often like to state "I am not a string." My mantra is "I am
> not a machine." As a human creating metadata and deciding what
elements
> appropriately describe the item I am describing, there is no 303. I
see
> an identifier, in a list or in some documentation. I need to
understand
> whether that identifier is appropriate for the context in which I
might
> use it. That means that, as a human, I need some understanding of what
> the URI identifies -- which can be the OCLC record I derived my copy
> cataloging from, the resources represented by the record, both, or
> something else altogether. Whether I include it, or to which subject I
> associate it, may well depend on what I see as the semantics of that
> identifier.
>
> Now, admittedly, when machines process my data they may make other
> decisions. This is, in some sense, the disconnect that we deal with
> often between the metadata creator and the system. But I do think that
> having the humans and the machines working with the same definitions
> will make our metadata better. So the machine-oriented 303 is a post-
> creation decision, and should be developed in accord with the metadata
> creation community and the human users of the metadata.
>
> kc
>
>
>
> On 1/25/13 8:43 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > Correct. The mechanism for associating "the thing" URI and "the
> record"
> > URI is an HTTP 303 (See Other) redirect.
> >
> > Taking this a step further, stop thinking of the latter resource as
a
> > "record". It would be better to call it an "information resource"
> that
> > describes "the thing". Variant representations of that information
> can
> > be delivered using a variety of vocabularies and syntaxes that
> > consumers can select via content-negotiation.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:04 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> >>
> >> Jeff, while the URI may identify the book, it is also the only Web
> > hook
> >> for the retrieval of the bibliographic record, unless you intend to
> >> create a second URI for the record. The LC "permalink" (and I
> believe
> >> OCLC's similar one) is a permanent link back to that record in the
> >> database. The record is also a "thing".
> >>
> >> If you wish to define the LC or OCLC URI as "thing" identifiers,
> then
> >> you (and we all) have to understand that it identifies what library
> >> cataloging rules decided was a "thing." That could be a monographic
> >> series, or a monograph in the series; a box in an archive, contents
> >> undescribed; or, in the case we are discussing here, multiple
> >> bindings of the same text. The caution here is that the library
> >> "thing" and someone else's determination of "thing" (e.g.
> publishers)
> >> will differ, and we should be careful not to declare ours as more
> >> than the library view of the world. We are not the world, and will
> >> have to be able to bend our view in order to meet that of others.
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/24/13 2:38 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> >>> In the old days, LCCNs were "card numbers". When the machines
came,
> >>> they got upgraded to "control numbers". When Linked Data came
> > around,
> >>> they got upgraded to "concept numbers".
> >>>
> >>> <id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n88055112> identifies a concept.
> >>> Likewise,
> >>> <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/136259> identifies a book.
> >>>
> >>> String identifiers are buggy whips.
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:25 PM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Kevin Ford is referring to a case of distinction without
a
> >>>> difference rather than uncertain sameness. The point is not that
> > the
> >>>> paperback and the hardcover are the same, but that their
> > differences
> >>>> don't require separate descriptive records in the catalog. The
> >>>> cataloged entity includes both, despite their differences.
> >>>>
> >>>> To reorient Kevin's example, suppose after a catalog record with
> >> LCCN
> >>>> is created, a publisher creates separate records identified by
> ISBN
> >>> for
> >>>> the hardcover and the paperback. Having the LCCN on both of the
> >>>> publisher's records would mean that both could be retrieved by
> > LCCN,
> >>>> and both could provide supplemental data to the LCCN description.
> > So
> >>> my
> >>>> answer to Kevin's question would be "both, in order to enable
more
> >>>> comprehensive data gathering about aspects of the entity
described
> >> by
> >>>> the LCCN."
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Young,Jeff (OR)
<[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> I've found umbel:isLike to be handy property for situations like
> >>>> these.
> >>>>> Here's the definition:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The property umbel:isLike is used to assert an associative link
> >>>>> between similar individuals who may or may not be identical, but
> >> are
> >>>>> believed to be so. This property is not intended as a general
> >>>>> expression of similarity, but rather the likely but uncertain
> same
> >>>>> identity of the two resources being related.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This property can and should be changed if the certainty of the
> >>>>> sameness of identity is subsequently determined.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In general, we may not be able to assert that two individuals
are
> >>> the
> >>>>> same based solely on current information on hand. However, there
> >> may
> >>>>> be quite reasonable bases or methods that the two individuals
are
> >>>>> likely the same without being one hundred percent sure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> umbel:isLike has the semantics of likely identity, but where
> there
> >>> is
> >>>>> some uncertainty that the two resources indeed refer to the
exact
> >>>> same
> >>>>> individual with the same identity. Such uncertainty can arise
> > when,
> >>>>> for example, common names may be used for different individuals
> >>>> (e.g., John Smith).
> >>>>> It is appropriate to use this property when there is strong
> belief
> >>>> the
> >>>>> two resources refer to the same individual with the same
> identity,
> >>>> but
> >>>>> that association can not be asserted at the present time with
> >>>> certitude.
> >>>>> Jeff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:23 PM
> >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> >>>>>>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN,
> and
> >>>>>>> all standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the
> >>>>>>> manifestation
> >>>>>> (aka
> >>>>>>> instance), not the work.
> >>>>>> -- Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are two
ISBNs
> >> in
> >>>>>> one bib record. One for the hardback, the other is for the
> >>>>>> paperback.
> >>>>>> Of
> >>>>>> course, there is one LCCN in the 010.
> >>>>>> If ISBNs are used as "splitting" points - meaning that two
> >> BIBFRAME
> >>>>>> Instances would be created from the one MARC bib record in the
> >>> above
> >>>>>> example - where does the LCCN go? Neither Instance? The first
> >>>>>> Instance created from splitting the ISBNs from the 020? Both
> >>>>>> Instances?
> >>>>>> If the answer is neither or both, what is the role of the LCCN
> > (or
> >>>>>> another traditional description identifier, such as an OCLC
> >> number)
> >>>>>> in the new ecosystem?
> >>>>>> Cordially,
> >>>>>> Kevin
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:40 PM
> >>>>>>> To: Ford, Kevin
> >>>>>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Bibframe and translations from MARC
> > Kevin
> >>>>>>> quoted:
> >>>>>>>>> Is there a theory beyond the mappings? In this example
> >>>>>>>>> (http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/BFbook.html), the LCCN is mapped
> >>> to
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> work ...
> >>>>>>> It would seem clear to me that 010 LCCN, 020 ISBN, 022 ISSN,
> and
> >>>>>>> all standard numbers including 016 LAC #, relate to the
> >>>>>>> manifestation
> >>>>>> (aka
> >>>>>>> instance), not the work.
> >>>>>>> I too am concerned by the omissions and mapping. The
> >>>> bibliographic
> >>>>>>> universe is far more complex than Bibframe to date seems to
> >>>> assume.
> >>>>>>> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod ([log in to unmask])
> >>>>>>> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> >>>>>> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
> >>>>>>> ___} |__
> >>>>>> \__________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> >>>> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota
> >>>> 160 Wilson Library
> >>>> 309 19th Avenue South
> >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> >>>> Ph: 612-625-2328
> >>>> Fx: 612-625-3428
> >> --
> >> Karen Coyle
> >> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >> skype: kcoylenet
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
|
