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  June 2014

BIBFRAME June 2014

Subject:

Re: Bibframe Profile not in RDF?

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Mon, 9 Jun 2014 18:53:17 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

Ivan,

Thanks for the update. I'm in the early stages of formulating a 
comparison between the W3C work and the DCMI work (to date). My first 
impression is that the DCMI work has a focus on documentation, and the 
W3C work primarily sets up structures for validation. In the end, we may 
have enough overlap that it would make sense to combine the efforts. I 
hope that someone from the W3C community will be able to follow the DCMI 
group. And vice versa, of course.

I'll alert you as soon as there's something visible on the wiki.

kc

On 6/9/14, 11:33 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Just an additional information: I would expect an official charter proposal for a W3C group to go out relatively soon (I think it will be called "Data Shape"), meaning that a corresponding WG may start its work in autumn. Which technique (shape language, modified OWL semantics, or other) will be used is of course not decided at this point, it will be a decision of the group.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> On 09 Jun 2014, at 02:46 , Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, if you look at the W3C validation workshop I cited, much of the validation is done with SPARQL, with or without OWL. Using the closed world method may work in some cases, but it depends greatly on the nature of your closed and open worlds. What the Dublin Core AP work promotes is being very careful that your closed world validation needs do not affect your open world semantics. In other words, if you define your ontology with OWL constraints that you wish to interpret in a closed world, beware that those same constraints, with a different, open world context, apply to your data universally. This may not yield the desired results in the open world. (Note that many of the examples in the W3C workshop were enterprise uses of RDF, thus not terribly concerned with open world semantics. I think we have a special case with bibliographic data because not only do we want it to be open, but our data is, in essence, massively crowd-sourced, and not at all under a single point of control
 .
)
>>
>> In addition, there are many aspects of application profiles that are not part of the RDF concept. APs can define what LOV [1] calls a "vocabulary" -- that is, a set of classes and properties that are used in a particular data set.
>>
>> In any case, if anyone wishes to participate, there is a new DCMI task group that over the next year will look into the needs for application profiles for metadata in RDF.[2]  It is just beginning, and anyone can join in. Discussion will take place on the dc-architecture [3] mailing list. If you have use cases to contribute, please send them to the list.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/
>> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF-Application-Profiles
>> [3] https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=dc-architecture&A=1
>>
>> On 6/8/14, 9:31 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> Perhaps we do not "constrain" in the usual data processing sense, but useful information can be mechanically derived using these technologies.
>>>
>>> If I apply some ontology to a knowledge base and do not thereafter discover a certain resource X categorized into a certain type T, I normally interpret that in an open world as meaning that I just don't yet know whether X is a T. But, for my own convenience and within the privacy of my own systems, I _can choose_ to interpret that absence to myself to mean that X is not a T, as long as I don't publish this assertion or any assertions derived therefrom. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to ignore this possibility for workflow.
>>>
>>> It is also very possible to reinterpret OWL with formal closed-world semantics: Clark & Parsia offer a nice example at: http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html
>>>
>>> ---
>>> A. Soroka
>>> The University of Virginia Library
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is, however, a bit of a problem with writing profiles and their constraints in RDF -- which is that RDF (and OWL) support inferences, but not constraints in the usual data processing sense. If you've looked into the W3C validation work, or the DCMI AP work, you see that there are points where one either bends the RDF rules, or moves into another language with different semantics.
>>>>
>>>> W3C validation: http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/
>>>> DCMI RDF APs: http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF-Application-Profiles
>>>> Shape Expressions: http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer
>>>>
>>>> The DCMI group is going to be looking into APs from the DCMI point of view. I'm personally not sure what this is going to require, but in trying to think through how it might be defined in RDF, I run into problems, especially with cardinality and anything requiring structure.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 6/7/14, 7:14 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>>> I have just learned about the Bibframe Profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Bibframe is based on RDF, why are Bibframe Profiles not based on RDF?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I understand, the constraints described in Bibframe Profiles are constraints on RDF elements and vocabularies, and do not constrain mere data. I'm not sure about what is meant with "structural constraints", maybe also integrity constraints?
>>>>>
>>>>> So expressing Bibframe Profiles in RDF as rules would be more beneficial to the semantic web community.  I think it is possible to express the rules as an ontology. By doing this, informal notations or plain JSON or EBNF notations would no longer be necessary to express a Bibframe Profile, the document could be rewritten to use RDF (serialized in Turtle, JSON-LD, etc. whatever is convenient)
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jörg
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>>
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> 4, rue Beauvallon, clos St Joseph
> 13090 Aix-en-Provence, France
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
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

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