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  March 2013

BIBFRAME March 2013

Subject:

Re: Reuse (or not) of existing ontologies

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:06:11 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

On 3/14/13 10:29 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Schema.org is NOT "yet another monolithic vocabulary". It also isn't
> dependent on HTML markup.
Well, the schema.org properties are all in the schema.org namespace, so 
there is http://schema.org/title, not http://purl.org/dc/title, or 
http://rdvocab.info/Elements/Title. Obviously you can put whatever 
metadata you want into your HTML file, but schema.org is schema.org. I'm 
quite unclear as to why you think this is the only or best way to create 
linked data, since it truly is a microdata format designed for HTML mark-up.

And speaking of schema.org, the namespace is owned by Google, which to 
my mind makes it essentially proprietary. Yes, all namespaces need to be 
owned by someone, but I would prefer to use properties that are backed 
by institutions with the kind of longevity that we in libraries aim to, 
and often do, achieve. This has been my criticism of FOAF -- a fine 
vocabulary but no solid institutional backing. There have been 
discussions of using library archiving skills and facilities to archive 
key vocabularies, and FOAF seems to me to be a contender. This could 
bring something like FOAF into library space (if we do want to use FOAF 
properties, of course). What we lack in most vocabularies is good 
versioning so that a vocabulary can evolve without breaking current and 
past usage. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

kc



kc






> It IS inherently Linked Data.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Reuse (or not) of existing ontologies
>
> On 3/14/13 3:43 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:13, Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Our initial linked data analysis identified literally dozens of
>>> namespaces used in the Library community reflecting various stages of
>>> experimentation. More if you start to broaden analysis to the include
>>> museums, archives, galleries, etc.. And even more if you broaden into
>>> more of how we might imagine patrons / others adding value to this
>>> data. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with RDF /
>>> Linked Data. There isn't one vocabulary that works (or will work) for
>>> everything. ;)
>> I'd absolutely agree with this - which is perhaps why the idea of a
> 'bibframe' vocabulary worries me. While I absolutely see the point of a
> framework in which libraries operate to describe resources, approaching
> the description of resources from a library perspective only worries me
> more. Even if we are creating new vocabularies (for the reasons already
> put forward), I wonder if there is an argument for having a more 'small
> bits' approach to building these than trying to create a single
> vocabulary to tackle the whole of library description?
>
> First, I want to note that RDA, the cataloging rules that prompted the
> idea that we need to move away from MARC to something more akin to
> linked data, already has an RDF vocabulary and its own namespace. [1]
> This is managed by JSC. So either BIBFRAME will duplicate the well over
> 1,000 RDA properties, or it must make use of that property set. It isn't
>
> clear why BIBFRAME isn't using the RDA RDF where it applies.
>
> Second, I'm seeing some confusion about what BIBFRAME is. Is it a
> framework? Is it a framework + vocabulary?  I was under the impression
> that BIBFRAME was providing a basic model of "things in the
> bibliographic space" within which a variety of vocabularies could be
> used. What concerns me about the current direction is the emphasis on
> converting MARC records. At least experimentation with RDA would be
> looking toward the future rather than the past.
>
> And finally, my suggestion about using a "public facing" form of our
> data is not the same as Richard's suggestion of schema.org. While it may
>
> become well-known, schema.org is "yet another monolithic vocabulary." It
>
> is also wrapped around displays in HTML. While it may evolve into
> something else, it isn't inherently linked data. We need to be linking
> to data in the LOD space ASAP if we want to be "of the web." There are
> many possibilities for that, but we aren't taking advantage of them.
>
> kc
>
> [1] http://rdvocab.info
>
>> If this was done carefully we may even encourage other communities to
> take up some of the family of vocabularies used within bibframe which,
> to be honest, seems unlikely if what we end up with is a big 'library
> vocabulary'. It might also say to the rest of the community that we
> ('libraries') understand that this isn't about creating 'one vocab to
> rule them all' :)
>> It may be that some of the concerns I have can be mitigated by simply
> declaring equivalence between bibframe entities and entities described
> by others using other vocabularies. I also acknowledge Richard's point
> that 'bibframe' may not be what is typically exposed to the outside
> world. However I think there is a high risk that at this stage bibframe
> is seen as being too insular - I'm not sure if there is a solution to
> this, but I'm concerned we may lose support of those who have already
> invested time and effort in building vocabularies and describing things
> that libraries are interested in (both inside and outside the library
> community) - which I would argue are the very communities we should be
> seeking to engage.
>> Owen
>>
>> Owen Stephens
>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936

-- 
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

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