Another bit of information for anyone interested: The BIBFRAME profiles
follow the Description Set Profile developed by the Dublin Core
Community in 2008 . The latter continues to be a working draft, and
therefore doesn't have final status. Notably, the DSP was developed as a
design for an XML schema. (And an XSD was created but apparently never
tested.) The DSP essentially provides a record structure that can be
applied to RDF data. It includes a top "description template" that then
contains (in an XML hierarchical sense) descriptions (generally of
entities); descriptions in turn define the statements or elements that
will describe the entities.
I looked again at the DSP and indeed it does not define an identifier
for statement descriptions, similar to the lack of an identifier for the
BIBFRAME property template. This is viable in an XML structure, although
I personally would opt to provide an identifier for the set of
constraints that relate to the property, even in an XML structure. In
fact, in the pseudo-code examples that I created for the DC guidelines
document for Application Profiles , I did include such an identifier.
Outside of the structure confines of XML, the lack of an identifier may
not be viable.
One question that the Dublin Core RDF AP group  will investigate is
whether a one can define a Profile using RDF, or if, because of the
semantics of RDF, validation must take place outside of the RDF
definitions. Shape Expressions (soon to be known as Data Shapes) uses
something resembling RegEx, and SPIN is based on SPARQL, which is a
query language. These latter two are taking place within the W3C
community, and the Dublin Core work will coordinate with them. The
variety of approaches, to me, is evidence of the difficulty of effecting
common data processing validation on the semantics of RDF, but it is
also evident that there is a growing need to find a solution.
On 7/1/14, 8:38 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Could I bring up another question? I note that the property template
> uses the property URI as its identifier. I believe that this may be
> problematic, as the property URI is then identifying two different
> things: a property, and a graph that exists in a particular profile
> context. This could cause confusion in an environment where a single
> property may be used in more than one profile with different attributes.
> As an example, I could have two profiles, one of which has bf:title as
> mandatory, the other does not. As there are no "records" in RDF, my
> set of triples would have:
> A resource template would include <bf:title> in its array of property
> templates. Therefore, wouldn't bf:title be both true and false
> whenever it is used in a profile?
> On 7/1/14, 2:07 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>> Dear Kevin,
>> Late thanks for your comments and clarifications. My comments inline:
>>>> First of all thank you for your work on the BIBFRAME Profiles. I
>>>> think the
>>>> notion of profiles will be increasingly important in the library
>>>> perhaps particularly for an exchange format like BIBFRAME that is
>>>> not tied
>>>> a specific cataloguing code. I see some overlap with the work being
>>>> RDF application profiles so I copy the DCMI Architecture List.
>>>> Having studied the document on BIBFRAME Profiles  I have some
>>>> questions and hope that someone can shed some light here.
>>>> §2.2 Resource Template
>>>> How do the resourceURI and the resourceLabel relate to each other? My
>>>> understanding was that the resourceLabel is the label of the resource
>>>> available at the resourceURI (and thus available by dereferencing the
>>>> resourceURI). In the example (Fig 2.2a), however, there is the
>>>> Book” and the resourceURI http://bibframe.org/vocab/Text (which is
>>>> not a
>>>> book). Can you please expand a bit on this in the document?
>>> -- When Bibframe Profiles are used as cataloging templates, which is
>>> they are used presently but with additional future uses to be
>>> (there has been some "validation" talk, but very little and very
>>> it is possible to alter the "labels" of classes/resources and
>>> properties for
>>> specific user communities. For example, with a Bibframe Profile,
>>> you could
>>> use the label "Number of pages" with the property bf:extent, which,
>>> in the
>>> vocabulary, has a "Extent" as its label. For the specific community
>>> a book, "Number of pages" is more descriptive about what is expected
>>> to be
>>> entered into the field versus "Extent." So, in the example above,
>>> which has a label of "Text" in the vocabulary, would display to the
>>> user as
>>> "Book" in the editor, where Bibframe Profiles act as cataloging
>>> Does this help clarify the idea a little?
>> Yes, it does. If the resource label is mainly for UI purposes,
>> perhaps it could be a solution to change "resourceLabel" to "uiLabel"
>> or something similar.
>>>> §2.5 Value datatype
>>>> Is there a reason not to use the XML schema datatypes, where
>>>> and to define RDF/OWL datatypes (subclass of rdfs:Datatype and OWL
>>>> Restrictions) when you need new ones? In Figure 2.5, you could just
>>> -- Actually, "defaultURI" could be
>>> "http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchemadate" if you wanted it to be.
>>> "xsd" is
>>> just a namespace prefix after all. Anyways, Eric and all could
>>> provide more
>>> details about what was intended but the text indicates that the
>>> ISO8601 date
>>> would be "a variation on the ISO 8601 date standard," which is why, I
>>> presume, xsd:date was not used.
>> OK. For interoperability, pre-defined datatypes should of course be
>> preferred. Could you add such a recommendation to the document?
>>>> §4 Serialisation
>>>> Is there a reason to restrict the available serialisations? In
>>>> general you could
>>>> say that any existing (RDFXML, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, …) or
>>>> future RDF
>>>> serialization is acceptable in BIBFRAME? And yes, examples please
>>>> in Turtle.
>>> -- Just to be clear: Serialization here refers to serialization of a
>>> Profile, not Bibframe resource data itself. Correct, if Bibframe
>>> Profiles were
>>> expressed inTurtle then presumably any RDF serialization would also be
>>> viable. Personally, I think pushing the Profile spec into Turtle
>>> would result in
>>> some unwieldy RDF, but I'd have to see it to know.
>> OK, we should try and see what happens...
>>>> §6.1 Default BIBFRAME Profile
>>>> Here I don’t understand what you mean by saying “Human readable labels
>>>> for the display are extracted from the RDF schema associated with
>>>> the class
>>>> identifiers”. Which “class identifiers” do you refer to? And: If
>>>> you can
>>>> the label by dereferencing a URI, why repeat it in the profile?
>>> -- The answer here is more or less the same as given in response to
>>> comment about section 2.2 above.
>>> The "class identifiers" are the
>>> resourceURIs and propertyURIs, which refer to classes and properties
>>> defined in the Bibframe vocabulary. We can probably come up with a
>>> way to refer to these instead of using "class identifiers," which is
>>> to say that I
>>> see the confusion. The "human readable labels" are the values you
>>> see in
>>> that example associated with the resourceLabel and propertyLabel
>>> properties. Looking at the example, however, "resourceLabel: Book"
>>> really be resourceLabel: Text." The idea was to use the same labels
>>> in the
>>> profile as used in the vocabulary, but - as with my comment above -
>>> it is a
>>> profile creator's choice to use whichever label he or she wants to
>>> use for a
>>> resource or property in a Profile. For example, since the "author"
>>> property is
>>> repeatable, the Profile label could be "Author(s)" instead of the
>>> "Author," which /is/ the property's actual label, so that the
>>> cataloger would
>>> know more than one is permissible. It’s a feature.
>> OK, got it. And I admit that I cannot come up with something better
>> than "class identifiers". We'd have to work on that.
>>>> In the example you use the domain name “examplelib.org”. In order to
>>>> sure that you do not (by accident) use a domain name actually used by
>>>> someone, it would be better to use the domains example.com or
>>>> example.org or their subdomains, e. g. library.example.org.
>>> -- OK, but can we agree this is a pretty minor point? :) It's used
>>> twice, both as
>>> part of a dummy email address within a note field, not as part of a
>>> resource/property URI.
>> Yes, it's a minor point, but it's helpful since it shows (at least
>> technically savvy readers) that it's really just an example and
>> doesn't refer to any existing data.
>>>> §6.2 RDA as a BIBFRAME Profile
>>>> Shouldn’t the frbr:Item map to bf:HeldItem instead of to bf:Instance?
>>> -- Yes, we'll have to get the graphic updated.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net