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:

Simeon Warner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 23 May 2013 03:16:57 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

+1 also to Owen's post. It seems to me the key motivation to use RDF/LD 
is interoperability with data from other domains. Reuse of existing 
vocabularies where appropriate helps this and allows the effort to focus 
on the additional semantics necessary for the target application.

A key goal of work to build a new discovery system for our library is 
the merging of catalog records with addition records and 
data/annotations from other sources. I don't think it makes sense to 
think if library records existing only in a walled garden.

Cheers,
Simeon

On 5/23/13 12:58 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Shlomo Sanders
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 22:46, "Owen Stephens" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> On 22 May 2013, at 18:25, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying on
>>> them being around for the long haul,
>>
>> Firstly - we need to define this a bit more closely - what is the
>> estimated timescale for BIBFRAME to be relevant?
>> Secondly - by building on RDF we are surely already tying ourselves to
>> something that is not necessarily here for 'the long haul' - what is
>> the likelihood of widespread use of RDF outlasting Dublin Core, FOAF,
>> SKOS, etc.? I'd say that the risk of RDF becoming obsolete isn't much
>> different to these core vocabularies becoming obsolete (but of course
>> this is by nature completely unknown so none of us really know how
>> long this stuff will remain relevant and used). Even building on the
>> web and http has some risk and likely expiry date - we just don't know
>> what it will be.
>> Thirdly - even if FOAF, Dublin Core, SKOS stop being used by others,
>> there seems nothing to stop us continuing to use it as a community -
>> how would this be less sustainable and worse than using our own
>> vocabularies?
>>
>>> and requiring systems that consume them to be aware of all the
>>> multiple namespaces
>>
>> I'd argue the opposite here - there are already plenty of systems and
>> code libraries that deal with these common namespaces - that's the
>> point! If we go our own way as a community here we are pretty much
>> guaranteeing that we have to build the toolsets ourselves, and that no
>> other systems will know what to do with our namespaces.
>>
>> Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/927/
>>
>>> . 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.
>>
>> Well I have some sympathy with this, and think there are lots of
>> properties where we will need to use library/BIBFRAME specific
>> properties - I don't have a problem with this. It's not re-using when
>> possible that I have a problem with. Can we really not agree that a
>> persons name is adequately represented by foaf:name? Surely we need to
>> at least give this a try before we give up?
>>> In some ways, I think here is a case  for annotations; I could see
>>> people making assertions that x Work has some y relationship to z,
>>> and Bibframe could say okay, stick that in an annotation and a system
>>> can use it or not.
>>>
>>
>> Why do we need annotations to achieve this? I can easily publish an
>> assertion that x Work has some y relationship to z without requiring
>> an annotation to do it? Isn't this just another triple?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>> Nate
>>> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] <http://LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>]*On
>>> Behalf Of*Laura Krier
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:54 AM
>>> *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> *Subject:*[BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
>>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
>>> "lightweight abstraction layer")
>>> On May 22, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>> re: re-using other properties
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 but feel this ship has already sailed - previous replies have been
>>> clear that BIBFRAME/LoC want to control the namespace.
>>> I'm not sure we should let this one go quite so easily. Not re-using
>>> existing properties reducing a lot of the benefit and purpose of
>>> using a linked data model in the first place. I haven't seen any
>>> reasoning from LoC that I agree with about why they are making this
>>> decision. And I think they've been very open to community opinion and
>>> input to date.
>>> Does anyone else agree that this might be worth pushing harder against?
>>> Laura
>>>
>>> --
>>> Laura Krier
>>> Metadata Analyst
>>> California Digital Library
>>> 510-987-0832
>>

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