On 5/22/13 2:22 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> (a) yes we do need a separate resource for them
> For Instances where the carrier is digital and we have a URL the instance, we already need to make a differentiation between our rdfs:Resource for metadata about the instance and the rdfs:Resource that is the instance. Otherwise we canít differentiate, for example, between the HTML version of the FRBR report and itís HTML catalog entry. Once we've made the distinction for digital Instances, having a different genre of 'thing' for our other entities in our model is a recipe for confusion.
> +1 (not sure my primary reasoning is the same, but agree with the point here and the conclusion)
I'm not sure I'm getting this, so I'm going to re-word and hopefully one
of you can tell me if you think I'm saying what you are saying...
There is a need for a separate resource for the "authority" -- separate
from the "thing" itself. So if the focus is a person, there is an
authority entity that is separate from the person entity. You can make
statements about that authority entity (rules under which it was
developed, for example). You can also make statements about the person
(date of birth, bio, an image...). The "light-weight authority" in the
BIBFRAME document is the former.
Is that what you're saying?
>> (b) we can do that very easily
>> In the foaf vocabulary there is a foaf:Person, a foaf:Document and foaf:primaryTopic which are what they say on the tin and have, I believe, exactly the semantics weíre looking for. foaf:Agent and geo:Point are obvious contenders for Organisation and Place. We can reuse them directly or via semantic sugar (a la madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority). There are other namespaces, with coverage of these areas; pretty much any of them is better than rolling our own. foaf also has the benefit of already being used by VIAF (and I believe it works for them, I've certainly not seen any complaints).
> +1 but feel this ship has already sailed - previous replies have been clear that BIBFRAME/LoC want to control the namespace. But I completely agree that this type of approach works (and the University of Cambridge example followed this). What I'm not clear on is whether there is the need for this lot of things to be grouped (presumably by being subclassed from?) as BIBFRAME 'Authorities'. I can't see why you'd want to do this at the moment - could the arguments be put forward for this in particular as opposed to the 'lightweight abstraction' in general (which I think is what the document does)
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net