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  October 2013

BIBFRAME October 2013

Subject:

Re: The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME position paper is now available

From:

"Godby,Jean" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 3 Oct 2013 20:18:30 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (49 lines)

Dear Vladimir,

I apologize for my delayed reply. I was traveling and had limited access to email. Thanks for your careful reading of my article and your comments. 

The issue of how to represent the distinction between FRBR Works and more concrete realizations of Creative Works in Schema.org is certainly one of the most unstable parts of the models being discussed in the Schema Bib Extend community and developed at OCLC.  What must be resolved is whether it serves the goal of improved library resource description to induce the distinction in a published ontology that does not recognize it; and if so, how to do it parsimoniously. That’s a tall order.

The solution presented in the article that uses the draft proposed Schema.org properties hasInstance/isInstanceOf represented thinking by OCLC colleagues and some in the Schema Bib Extend community at the time that I was writing my article—around March 2013 or so. The idea was to use the Schema Creative Work properties to create more and less concrete descriptions corresponding roughly to FRBR Works and Manifestations and wire them together with the hasInstance/isInstanceOf draft properties. This idea tracked very closely what was being discussed in the BIBFRAME Early Experimenters’ group, which was also interested in drawing distinctions between Work-level and Manifestation-level properties.  Of course, we considered using rdfs:subClassOf, and for the same reasons you give: the description would be more parsimonious and understandable by data consumers outside the library community.  Though an rdfs:subClassOf relationship implies that the more abstract properties would be inherited into the more concrete description, this result seemed entirely fortuituous, given that the author, title, and subject of a Work is usually the same as that of a Manifestation.

So why not use rdfs:subClassOf instead of the properties we have invented? The main problem is that the relationship between a FRBR Work and a Manifestation is not strictly a set-theoretic one. Instead, we have many reasons to believe that Work and Manifestation are strongly associated concepts whose relationship must be defined, by experts in library resource description.  In other words, we need to 'own' this part of the ontology of resource description. First, FRBR Work is somewhat fuzzy and may not be relevant to all resource types.  If the resource is unique, it may make sense only to create a ‘Manifestation’-level description with no associated Work, and the ambiguity in the Schema.org Creative Work class permits us to do that. In other cases, Work may need to have more than one level of hierarchy, as we grapple with how best to represent the common content in a literary classic that has been published many times, has been translated, recast as a comic book, and made into a movie or opera.  Another issue is that FRBR Works and Manifestations may specify the same properties but have different values, which implies that the relationship between the two classes is not strictly one of inheritance. For example, the Manifestation for a work of fiction may introduce a different subtitle or subject headings that usually supplement but may sometimes replace the Work-level values.

At OCLC, we are still discussing how to represent the relationship between FRBR Works and Manifestations in our models. The hasInstance/isInstanceOf is a bit inelegant, as you point out, but part of the problem is the name.  We need to be careful about defining properties containing the word ‘instance’ if it is not obvious that the relationship is between Works and Manifestations is one of instantiation. More strictly speaking, an 'instance' of a FRBR work would be a particular Work, not a Manifestation. In some cases, such as a narrative poem handed down through a preliterate oral tradition, the Manifestation is immaterial or irrelevant--or at least, many interesting things can be said about it without ever needing to mention its physical realization. In light of problems like this, the Schema Bib Extend Community has taken another stab at the problem of relating Works to Manifestations by considering the property names exampleOfWork and workExample to connect the different levels of the FRBR model through some formalism that falls short of a set-theoretic relationship. Here is a pointer to the relevant discussion: <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWork_Relationships>

Yet others in the Schema Bib Extend community have argued that the distinction need not be made at all – see the ‘Work/Manifestation’ discussion at <http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Areas_for_Discussion>. But the problem with doing nothing is that we would have no conceptual underpinning for asserting that some collections of creative works have the same intellectual content – a problem that publishers have not addressed in any meaningful way. So we continue to look for a solution.

All the best,
Jean
________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Vladimir Skvortsov <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] The revised version of the Schema/BIBFRAME position paper is now available

Hello Jean,
That is very delicate but important matter in my opinion, to find right
balance between existing standard properties and new ones being created
for more informativeness.
Please note that isInstanceOf in the Figure 2.1 of proposed document is
essentially the same as standard rdfs:subClassOf, except for the case when
Instance is a single subject not defined as Class. That is BIBFRAME
Instance. However even in this case we could consider Instance consisting
of copies and define it as Class as well. It leads us away from bf: and
oa:, of course, but uses standard properties that corresponds
to “minimalist philosophy emerging from the Schema Bib Extend initiative”,
as I see, and it makes sense for me and creates no dubbing. Besides, such
approach allows to describe any hierarchies – semantic ones, like FRBR, as
OCLC proposes, or structural, like Serials – see for example my
http://www.rusmarc.ru/soft/bibframe_model.pdf.
On the other hand if new properties (in bf: or oa:) are defined correctly
with correct references to standard ones, one can use them if he wants,
for example, going to use custom applications in line with standard
browsers and crawlers. Last ones would work correctly with such properties
as well.

Best wishes,
Vladimir Skvortsov,
National Library of Russia
Saint-Petersburg

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

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