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 authorities: relationToWork

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 16 May 2013 17:15:15 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (120 lines)

> To resolve this, and this is a case that we will encounter, there will
> have to be some contortions, possibly a blank node:
> 
> WorkURI - Creator -_blankA
> 
> _blankA - typeOf - http://bibframe.org/vocab/Person _blankA - authID -
> http://bibframe.org/auth/person/franklin
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/label -  "Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-
> 1790"
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/resourceRole - "supposed compeser"

-- This solution is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the discussion paper's Example 3 [1].

The differences are extremely minor.  Example 3 employs HTTP URIs whereas your example relies on blank nodes.  We cannot mandate the use of HTTP URIs but we certainly encourage it.  Example 3 has a property called "relationToWork."  Your example uses "resourceRole."  Using "resourceRole" is more correct presently, since this property exists in the vocabulary [2].  "relationToWork" is an artefact of the document being initially drafted *before* "resourceRole" existed (and an oversight with respect to modifying the discussion paper so that the names of classes and properties reflect those found in the current vocabulary).   Regardless, the principle behind the two properties, both designed to record the relationship between the Agent and a Work, despite their names, is exactly the same.  It is intended to be used when it is otherwise impossible to use a declared "relator" property.  


> This brings up a specific question about the BIBFRAME authority: Is it
> intended to be re-usable? Or does it have the "one-off" nature of a
> blank node?
-- It is designed to be re-usable.  For example, I would expect an implementer to create only one BIBFRAME Authority per Agent entity.  Now, what this email and a few others I've read have made me realize is that implementers will have to create duplicate BIBFRAME Authority resources for what is essentially the same entity in some special cases.  For example, if it is necessary to capture the "resourceRole" as free text, such as in the Bad Data example, the implementer will have to basically create two BIBFRAME Authority resources (BFA1 and BFA2) for Benjamin Franklin: BFA1 would not contain a "resourceRole" property and it could be used whenever the relationship between the Work and Benjamin Franklin's role was known (creator, illustrator, etc), but BFA2 would have the resourceRole property and would be associated with one distinct Work.  It would be my hope that someone eventually recognize the problem and do away with BFA2 by creating the triple "W :cmp BFA1."  Unless, of course, the "supposed" is deemed an essential aspect, at which point BFA2 would have to continue to exist.  Something else to keep in mind: this example may not quite meet the definition of "edge case" but it also unlikely represents a significant percentage of cases to demand a more elaborate across-the-board solution.
 
Personally, I think the "resourceRole" property should be avoided at all costs.  It exists to ensure that data, such as visible in the "Bad Data" example (it's a real example, incidentally), not be lost in a migration.  It also exists to accommodate RDA's allowance of a write-in option.  I expect future cataloging practices (to be driven by new cataloging interfaces) will encourage the use of a property to define the relationship between an Agent and a Work.

Yours,
Kevin


[1] http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/#issues-3
[2] http://bibframe.org/vocab/resourceRole



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME authorities: relationToWork
> 
> There is an example under "Bad Data":
> 
> <!--  BIBFRAME Work -->
> <*Play* id =
> "*http://bibframe/work/Quatuor-pour-trois-violons-et-violoncelle*">
>        <title>Quatuor pour trois violons et violoncelle</title>
>        <creator resource = "http://bibframe/auth/person/franklin" />
> </*Play*>
> <!--  BIBFRAME Authority -->
> <*Person* id="http://bibframe/auth/person/franklin">
>        <label>Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790</label>
>        <relationToWork>supposed compeser.</relationToWork>
>        <hasIDLink
> resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79043402" />
>        <hasVIAFLink resource="http://viaf.org/viaf/56609913" />
>        <hasDNBLink resource="http://d-nb.info/gnd/118534912" />
> </*Person*>
> 
> There is a problem with "<relationToWork>supposed
> compeser.</relationToWork>" that goes beyond the bad data.
> 
> I believe that someone else mentioned this, but if "relationToWork" is
> a property of the Person, then that Person ID cannot be used for any
> other relationship (e.g. "author") because as expressed here
> relationToWork is being said about the Person, period. There needs
> instead to be a triple that has:
> 
> WorkURI - relationToWork - PersonURI
> 
> This then states the relationship of the Person to that particular work,
> and doesn't change the underlying definition of the Person.
> Unfortunately, this isn't possible when the value of "relationToWork"
> is not a URI, because properties (the middle parts of the triples) have
> to be URIs. For example, if this information were coded using the MARC
> relator standard "<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cmp>" then you
> could say:
> 
> http://bibframe.org/work/Quatuor-pour-trois-violons-et-violoncelle -
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cmp -
> http://bibframe.org/auth/person/franklin
> 
> Which means that this person is the composer of the Work. (I don't know
> if there's a code for "supposed composer" but I'm pretending that "cmp"
> will do.)
> 
> To resolve this, and this is a case that we will encounter, there will
> have to be some contortions, possibly a blank node:
> 
> WorkURI - Creator -_blankA
> 
> _blankA - typeOf - http://bibframe.org/vocab/Person _blankA - authID -
> http://bibframe.org/auth/person/franklin
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/label -  "Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-
> 1790"
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/resourceRole - "supposed compeser"
> 
> The difference between the blank node and the way I interpret the
> "lightweight BIBFRAME authority" is that the blank node is a one-off --
> it's only  usable in this one instance. There is no creation of an
> identity that could be re-used in other circumstances (although, as
> I've done above, it can link to an identity, such as an authority
> record).
> Blank nodes are considered last resorts by some linked data enthusiasts
> because they aren't re-usable. But there are times when you really have
> little choice.
> 
> This brings up a specific question about the BIBFRAME authority: Is it
> intended to be re-usable? Or does it have the "one-off" nature of a
> blank node?
> 
> kc
> p.s. There are undoubtedly other solutions to this problem, and I hope
> they'll get posted here.
> 
> --
> 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

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