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  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: Bibframe and Linked Data: Relationships & Others

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:58:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Comments in line.

Yours,
Kevin


On 07/10/2014 02:29 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> And the other issues below:
>
>     Relationships
>     The role of a BIBFRAME Agent with respect to a Work/Instance is
>     expressed either by (a) a URI; or (b) a string, when there is no
>     known URI for that role.  The paper finds fault: In method (a), with
>     the perceived restriction of role URIs to LC relators. With method
>     (b), in general.
>     The first is simply a misperception. There is no such restriction;
>     the URI can come from any appropriate role vocabulary.
>
> That's great, of course :) Thank you for clarifying.
>
> The issue I have with it isn't the use of LC relators, it's that
> existing relationships can't be used, as the object has to be a
> bf:Authority, rather than a real person. However, given the discussion
> in the authority thread, that seems like it's understood -- no need to
> belabor the point further.
>
>
>     As for “method (b)” it is simply impractical to insist that every
>     role have a URI, particularly since during early BIBFRAME
>     implementation much of the BIBFRAME data will be converted from MARC
>     records.
>
> And, I think for the first time, I'm not sure that I agree here.  If we
> can mint URIs for resources that are generated from MARC records, as per
> the examples on the site, then individual libraries should be equally
> able to mint their own relationship URIs.  They might not be
> semantically useful, but neither are the strings in Relators.

-- I personally agree with this.  I would add to it the Relators 
resource would add a painful, and unnecessary, hop in the data.

Do others have an opinion?

>
> See also the global vs locally defined discussion -- if the relationship
> is defined, described and maintained ... that seems great!


Important note: As easy as it is to write that individual libraries can 
and should mint their own properties when they believe they need to and 
as easy as it is to understand that idea conceptually (and I do believe 
this is the way to go), there is nevertheless a very real education 
initiative needed to diffuse this knowledge.  Education about this would 
not only help individual librarians understand /how/ custom "relators" 
can be achieved but would also be able to educate those librarians about 
how best to publish information about those custom properties in such a 
way that others can decipher the data.  Also, if this is understood by 
individual library organizations, then when those libraries interface 
with their vendors, those libraries are well-informed to inquire about 
whether the software the vendor is offering is capable of such a thing. 
  And, if not, then minimally submit a feature request and maximally 
insist on it be added.

>
>
>     If a MARC record represents a person’s role as “ed.”, whoever does
>     the conversion might not be able to find an appropriate URI for that
>     role. The string should not simply be discarded; it should be
>     retained if for no other reason than that a human end-user might be
>     able to make sense of it.
>
> This is somewhat more convincing, but the same solution applies --
> automatically create a relationship and include in rdfs:comment or
> similar a note that the original relator was "ed."
>
> As a compromise it would be good to treat Relator in the same way as the
> other similar classes: give them a node that starts off blank and
> records the string, but can be swapped out in the future for a real
> URI.  It should also have properties like those of Identifier, such as
> Assigner, Qualifier, Status, and Scheme.  This would allow future
> reconciliation efforts to distinguish "Ed." from Stanford with "Ed."
> from Harvard, if the two institutions were to use them in internally
> consistent but different ways.

I've actually wondered whether the utility and overhead of even this 
solution is worth it.  That's not to say I am in favor of dropping the 
information, but that perhaps it just goes into a note field.

I say this because my hope is that we are able to resolve most of the 
relator strings in existing records such that we can match it with an 
existing property.  I'm confident "Ed." can be parsed and matched with 
"relators:edt".  If there is something truly unintelligible, then 
perhaps a note is sufficient (and the resource could be flagged for 
human evaluation, at which time it is corrected).

That said, we've not really worked to write The Most Exquisite "Relator 
Term" Parser and run it against a substantial dataset to see exactly how 
well we can do those matches.  We've done a little, but nothing systematic.

My "stick it in a note" idea hasn't been popular in some circles, but I 
lay it out to test what others think.

>
>
>     Predicate Proliferation
>     This section points out that there are perhaps many more properties
>     in BIBFRAME than necessary, and many could be eliminated.  This is a
>     legitimate concern, and BIBFRAME is and will be undergoing
>     vocabulary refinement, informed by the current BIBFRAME testbed
>     activity.
>
> I'm happy to provide a better initial list of these to fuel the
> discussion, if that would be useful.

Fine by me.  Thanks; I think this type of systematic review could be 
very beneficial.

>
>
>     Record vs.  Graph
>     Based on the examples, we believe this section draws almost entirely
>     on a mistake in the Bibframe vocabulary.  All of the properties
>     mentioned in this section are currently associated directly with
>     Work and Instance resources.  They should instead have a domain of
>     bf:DescriptionAdminInfo We regret this mistake.
>
> Ahh, that is much clearer. Thanks!
>
> A related question... what's the range of bf:derivedFrom?  Is it also
> bf:DescriptionAdminInfo, or is there a missing "bf:OriginalRecord" class
> or similar?
>
>
>     Model Inconsistency
>     The issues raised here do deserve closer inspection.  Rob speculates
>     that the reason why bf:Event and bf:Provider are not of class
>     bf:Authority is because there are not library authority lists for
>     events and providers.  That isn’t the reason; one has nothing to do
>     with the other.  Anyway, bf:Event and bf:Provider are currently
>     undergoing re-thinking.
>
> Okay, happy to hear that!  Event and Provider are the most obvious
> cases, if it would be useful I can try and generate a more comprehensive
> list?

As above, this sounds like a fruitful undertaking if you are willing.


Yours,
Kevin

>
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

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

December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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