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  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME Authority - Local domain URIs

From:

Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:24 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

The way I read this was that if you created a BIBFRAME Work you would also create BIBFRAME Authorities as necessary to describe the resource. I think BIBFRAME is just describing something that is in line with usual practices in the Linked Data space here. To take an existing Library example from the University of Cambridge Linked Data set (http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk) in Turtle:


@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .

<http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entry/cambrdgedb_1009003> dct:title "Unpopular essays on technological progress" ;
                                                        dct:creator <http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entity/cambrdgedb_341d9416c3b4a9d8827a9bb988a5bdeb> ;

<http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entity/cambrdgedb_341d9416c3b4a9d8827a9bb988a5bdeb> rdfs:label "Rescher, Nicholas" ;
                                                                                  rdf:type foaf:Person ;
                                                                                  foaf:name "Rescher, Nicholas" ;
                                                                                  owl:sameAs <http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377> .

Even though a VIAF identifier exists for Nicholas Rescher the University of Cambridge still creates a local entity for Nicholas Rescher. It then goes on to state that this entity is the same as the VIAF identity http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377.

As I say - I believe this to be standard practice in the linked data space, although I'm not sure there is anything explicit to stop you re-writing the above as:

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix dct: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .

<http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entry/cambrdgedb_1009003> dct:title "Unpopular essays on technological progress" ;
                                                        dct:creator <http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377> ;

The BIBFRAME Authority document refers to this latter approach as 'direct'. Using this latter approach has disadvantages. I don't have a local entity to make my own statements about it, and I don't have any local values to fall back on if there is a problem accessing VIAF at any time. As Karen pointed out, there maybe other technological solutions to the latter problem, but repeating some minimal data elements to offer some robustness is not unusual.

I believe the approach taken by Cambridge did, in some cases, lead to duplication of entities (although I can't find any examples) - these occurred where the form of (for example) the author name in one record was inconsistent with the form use in another record referencing the same author. I think this is inevitable on converting records from MARC. I suspect three stages to making bringing together multiple statements that in face represent the same entity:

1) some matching when converting the records and creating BIBFRAME data in the first place
2) matching to external sources from BIBFRAME data and finding disparate entities in your data that match to the same external entity
3) manual matching as and when issues are noticed

I imagine 2 and 3 are ongoing processes. I think I wouldn't expect 2 and 3 to lead to the deletion of any created entity, but rather to the creation of new statements of equivalence between them. The better (1) works then the less duplication there will be, but it's never going to perfect.

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 15 May 2013, at 18:51, Philip Schreur <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I keep bumping my head against "It is anticipated that the BIBFRAME Authority ... would be identified with a URI of the domain creating the resource." I'm not exactly sure what the implications are here.  Is it saying that the first organization (or person) creating a description of a resource would be responsible for creating all needed BIBFRAME authorities and mint them under its own domain?  If this is the case, is it expected that these BIBFRAME authorities would be shareable, that is, once created, no one else would need create a BIBFRAME authority for the same entity?  One issue I see here is that if BIBFRAME hopes to be adopted beyond the library world, there may be many that cannot use the model because they do not have a domain.  Also, if these BIBFRAME authorities are meant to be created once, how will they be editable by others outside the domain?  For instance, I may discover an ORCID ID I wish to add.  On the other hand, if each group that wishes to make use of the data for the resource needs to have its own version of the BIBFRAME authority, the duplication is frightening.
> 
> In a practical way, I'm trying to think of this model in application to a digital collection we have here of 400K images, documents, etc. called REVS (all centered around the automobile).  If we adopted BIBFRAME, I'd like to be able to use it to communicate all of our data, not just the small percentage that qualifies as traditional library.  Given the size of the collection, lower level staff or students will be responsible for creation of the metadata (and so the BIBFRAME authorities).  The possibility that separate BIBFRAME authorities would be created for the same entity is extremely high.  The likelihood that we could afford the time to add links to authority files such as VIAF (if the entity existed there) is minimal.  In cleaning up a heading in our catalog that was previously uncontrolled, it is not unusual to find 4 or 5 variants.  I assume in the REVS situation we might have many more BIBFRAME authorities then that for the same entity.
> 
> And so .... in this model I'm left with a bunch of isolated BIBFRAME authorities for the same entity both isolated from each other in our own domain and isolated from any larger, more traditional authority file.  This certainly defeats the purpose of using a URI in terms of linking but does it matter if BIBFRAME is only meant for communication?  Is the reconciliation a separate problem?
> 
> At first glance, I'd prefer pursuing methods of easing the creation (and in some cases automated) of more traditional records in a networked cluster of authority hubs and following the Direct method.
> 
> Philip
> 
> -- 
> Philip E. Schreur
> Head, Metadata Department
> Stanford University
> 650-723-2454
> 650-725-1120 (fax)

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 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