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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  July 2014

BIBFRAME July 2014

Subject:

Re: Deproliferation of Predicates

From:

Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:59:21 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

I have a healthy distrust of such lists, for two reasons.

Firstly they never seem to include local things I care about, such as
http://mshupoko.natlib.govt.nz/mshupoko/index.htm (Interestingly,
subject headings like that become much more interesting in the linked
data world, but that's another story.)

Secondly because in a linked data world, abbreviated codes that stand
for something we will already have URIs for is a redundant source of
confusion. By all means use the abbreviated codes for human-readable
mnemonics, but use the full URI for data matching and semantics and make
it clear that it's the URI not the abbreviated code that carries meaning.

cheers
stuart

On 07/23/2014 09:53 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> I just wanted to chime in two things here:
>
> 1) I want to acknowledge my agreement with the below but also add that this is one of those areas that I believe requires a greater education effort (on all of our parts). We need to communicate how other communities/implementers can do this responsibly; and
> 2) A hybrid solution is not only possible but a reality if you consider contemporary MARC practice.
>
> More about two: We already maintain a healthy list of classification "sources:" http://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/classification.html
>
> The codes are meant to be used in MARC Bib 084 $2.
>
> Although we never formally published it, we actually turned that list into RDF and added it to ID.LOC.GOV. We didn't bring it to completion because we noted there were two distinct ways to publish the list with respect to possible use and never quite resolved that question before our attentions were turned to bigger things. Regardless, the point being is this: we could actually leverage a fair amount of existing work to create a solid base set of URIs to unambiguously identify the "source" of the classification. So not just a few big ones could be immediately covered, but many smaller ones too (there are at least 149 entries on that list).
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
> p.s. Nate, before someone else points this out :) , and do know I actually wasn't looking for it (it was news to me), but the Chinese library classification (code: clc) is actually on the list!
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 5:13 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Deproliferation of Predicates
>>
>> Although the question was addressed to Rob Sanderson, I'm going to take
>> the liberty of opining:
>>
>> Let's invent a local scheme:
>>
>> local:ScientificDataSetClassification rdfs:subClassOf bf:Classification .
>>
>> local:EnvironmentalScienceDataSet a skos:Concept ;
>> skos:inScheme local:ScientificDataSetClassification .
>>
>> local:PhysicsDataSet a skos:Concept ;
>> skos:inScheme local:ScientificDataSetClassification .
>>
>> and so forth. With that published, we can use it in Linked Data. Kevin Ford
>> made the point in another thread that it's often a good practice to use local
>> URIs for things about which you want to make assertions, but which you
>> don't "own" yourself. Here's an example of why. If Bibframe were to adopt
>> and support a new bf:DataSetClassification corresponding to the above, we
>> could switch over to using it, and we could republish the RDF with the first
>> statement replaced:
>>
>> local:ScientificDataSetClassification owl:sameAs bf:DataSetClassification .
>>
>> but we wouldn't have to completely rework all of our metadata to respond
>> to a shift in Bibframe. From my perspective, the move here is to shift the
>> evolution of such entities (classification schemes and identifiers are good
>> examples) out of our metadata and into the community that supports it,
>> while at the same time reaping the benefits that come with having identifiers
>> and not labels (literals) as values in our metadata. When anyone can publish a
>> new classification scheme (for example) without disrupting other people
>> using Bibframe, space is opened up for that kind of evolution in a healthy
>> way, without losing the benefits of a controlled process for the evolution of
>> core ideas (which, in this example, would be the generic notion of a
>> classification scheme). (For example, if I worked at a small public library that
>> couldn't care less about scientific data sets, I'm not called upon at any point in
>> the above-imagined process to do anything to my metadata.) At the same
>> time, the shared model grows no more than is really needed.
>>
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:47 PM, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob,
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Nate
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>

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