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: http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the "lightweight abstraction layer"

From:

Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 23 May 2013 04:55:33 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (45 lines)

+1

Thanks,
Shlomo Sanders

On May 22, 2013, at 18:35, "Eric Miller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On May 22, 2013, at 5:22 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> On 22 May 2013, at 09:58, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> As I understand it, the main question posed by http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ is "Do we need a "lightweight abstraction layer""?
>>> 
>>> Equivalently, as I understand it, the question is "Can we attach the authority-related attributes directly to a person / document / place or do we need some separate resource for them?"
>>> 
>>> My answer is (a) yes we do need a separate resource for them and (b) we can do that very easily.
>>> 
>>> (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)
> 
> It sounds like we're in agreement (but for different reasons). Thats an indicator of a good design. 
> 
> 
>>> (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
> 
> It sounds like again we're in agreement in principal of the pattern. The disagreement then lies in minting new terms or reusing then from some other domain. It's a fair criticism, I just want to separate the points that folks agree to from ones they don't.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Indeed. From our preliminary analysis of linked data library patterns, while different groups used different URIs for these classes, the patterns (in general) were quite similar. Our analysis and implementation experience in linked data patterns outside of the library community helped confirm this as well. 
> 
>> 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)
> 
> The 'grouping' mechanism serves two (at least?) purposes. One as a mechanism for explanation ('Authority' vs trying to enumerate each example). The other is to support extensibility in a consistent, actionable manner. Stuart has listed some of these Authorities (Person, Topic, Organisation, Place, etc.) If one broadens the scope of BIBFRAME even slightly to support our traditional needs we start to see more.  A 'nearby' example would be the management of technical and product documentation across an huge, international organizations. In this case, the needs include refinement to Organisation, inclusion of Departments, etc. Once one moves beyond even these 'nearby' examples, the applications and use cases get even more interesting. Rather than say BIBFRAME should be everything to everyone and define everything (which it can't be), adding these extensibility mechanisms allows BIBFRAME to be used in a range of larger contexts and support even more of a free flow of data across descriptive communities. 
> 
> --
> Eric Miller
> President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
> http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229

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