Dedicated classes make it possible for programmers to process the data without having to interrogate and external source in order for code to decide how to process the value.
For example, LC Name Authority and LC Subject Authorities have known uses. Same for Mesh.
If some local extension needs to be interrogated before use in order to be sure what it is this will slow down things considerably.
If a local classification scheme could be a sub-class of a type classification scheme (and not just a generic bf:classification) then this could solve the issue.
Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 18:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Deproliferation of Predicates
It's not clear to me in what way the scheme outlined would prevent efficient operation. Perhaps you can elaborate?
The University of Virginia Library
On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Many institutions have a local adaptation of so e big classification scheme and by your definition are weird. Don't these need to be able to function efficiently?
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 23:47, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Well, we seem to have a list of a handful of the big classification schemes (in the current bibliocentric world), but nothing from China or from some new data format or wherever else; what do we do with their schemes when we express their data in our systems, before they become so generally accepted in BIBFRAME that they get their own? How do we express a local classification scheme?
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Deproliferation of Predicates
>> Hi Nate,
>> However, even better given the query optimization scenario would be:
>> _:x bf:classification [ a bf:NlmClassification ; value "123" ]
>> Haven't you gone here from deproliferating properties to proliferating classes? If we did this, wouldn't we also have to have these classes:
>> I have, yes :) But at the same time, getting rid of the string literals in scheme, and indeed, the scheme property all together. So a net reduction in the model, and a net increase in simplicity and ease of querying.
>> and you'd still probably need the generic bf:Classification and a way to say what scheme it represents, as we develop or accept new mechanisms to organize new types of material that don't rise yet to the level of having their own class?
>> I don't follow that, I'm afraid. Why wouldn't we (the community) give new Classification types their own subclass?