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: re-using existing properties (was http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the "lightweight abstraction layer")

From:

"Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 23 May 2013 14:11:12 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Is it the vocabulary that is inconsistent or reality itself? The world is a messy place that evolves over time, as will our vocabulary. Schema.org is designed for common sense. A person is a person, a book is a book, an event is an event, etc. It's true that common sense breaks down beyond a certain level, but it's absurd to think we can skip over common sense as a 1st step.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> 
> Jeff, unfortunately schema.org is one of the worst ontologies I've ever
> seen for inconsistency, a single, narrow views. I hope it does NOT
> become the main ontology, at least not without some huge revision.
> 
> kc
> (note: the blog post proposes schema.org as our future "OoE" - Ontology
> of Everything.)
> 
> On 5/23/13 9:49 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > Regarding FOAF and "Testing status", I thought this blog from awhile
> back rang true:
> >
> > http://philarcher.org/diary/2012/danbri/
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:41 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> >> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> >> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> >>
> >> Nate, what this says to me is that we need to work more
> >> collaboratively with others. This is what I hoped would come out of
> >> the NISO Bib Framework meeting (but unfortunately did not). I've
> been
> >> very frustrated with foaf - so much potential, and yet so
> >> un-realized. And it isn't being very actively developed anymore. So
> >> we can either roll our own, OR try to find a way to collaborate on
> >> standards for the Web, not standards for the library community only.
> >>
> >> If we were, for example, a community of flat worm neuron
> researchers,
> >> it might make sense to develop our own ontology with little direct
> >> interaction with that of others. But the data that libraries will
> >> create is by definition not exclusive to the library use case -- our
> >> metadata describes people, intellectual resources, places, events,
> >> time periods.
> >> These are about as close to universal concepts as you'll get.
> There's
> >> probably nothing in our data that shouldn't be linking to someone
> >> else's information somewhere.
> >>
> >> It makes me cringe a bit when I hear it, but it has been suggested
> >> that libraries are the logical organizations to take on the
> archiving
> >> and perhaps even maintenance of key ontologies. I know we don't have
> >> the funding for that and I am reminded of the poster that read:
> "What
> >> if schools were fully funded and the military had to hold a bake
> sale
> >> to buy an airplane?"
> >>
> >> So I agree, Nate, with your assessment -- that we can't risk using
> >> ontologies that can change arbitrarily. But we could potentially
> >> become partners in those ontologies, just as libraries from
> different
> >> countries have become partners in MARC21 and BIBFRAME. Dividing the
> >> world at libraries/not-libraries is the problem. Well, the crux of
> >> the problem is that we'd have to hold a bake sale to get the $$ and
> >> staffing to be participants, and even that wouldn't cover it.
> >>
> >> *aaaarrrrggghhh!*
> >>
> >> kc
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/23/13 8:39 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> >>> If you adopt someone else's terms, you are stuck with their
> >> definitions, and if they decide to change them, you have to revisit
> >> your decision: a constant maintenance headache.
> >>>
> >>> The foaf vocab is in Testing status, version 0.98. Are they going
> to
> >> change it before it comes out? Who knows?  Will they add something
> >> better like foaf:sortName that is more like a traditional library
> >> listing?
> >>>
> >>> Just coming up with a list of all the possible terms out there and
> >> fighting over whether they are close enough to use for each term we
> >> have will be a major use of time.
> >>>
> >>> On DC, people you might not be for it, but if we opened the BF
> vocab
> >> up, there might be a lot of clamor for it; it's so simple and it's
> >> all over the place!
> >>>
> >>> Nate
> >>> PS I had a good laugh about the Unicode and ISO 639 "roll our own
> >> comment". I'm working right now on developing a computer that uses
> 2s
> >> and 3s instead of 1s and 0s.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: stuart yeates [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM
> >>> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >>> Cc: Trail, Nate
> >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> >>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> >>> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> >>>
> >>> On 23/05/13 05:25, Trail, Nate wrote:
> >>>> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying
> >> on
> >>>> them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that
> >>>> consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces.
> >>> The "syntactic sugar" option used by
> >> madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority does not introduce a new namespace
> >> from the users' point of view. The syntactic sugar can even be kept
> >> in a separate RDF file from the definition of the bibframe
> >> properties, making it second class and invisible to everyone who
> doesn't want it.
> >>>
> >>>    > In all cases, I can't
> >>>    > see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or
> dc
> >> (or  > whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking
> about.
> >>>
> >>> Following that arguement we should also walk away from ISO 639, ISO
> >> 3166, RFC 3986, Unicode and so forth. None of them are perfect from
> a
> >> library point of view but all of the are better than rolling our
> own.
> >>>
> >>> [For the record I'm not suggestion using dc / Dublincore.]
> >>>
> >>> cheers
> >>> stuart
> >>> --
> >>> Stuart Yeates
> >>> Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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

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

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