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: Bibframe and Linked Data (Authorities)

From:

"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:22:35 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (71 lines)

That reassures me greatly. {grin} I would not have been able to agree with the first meaning, but I can easily agree with the second. I wanted to clarify your intent.

It's not at all clear to me that managing provenance in the global web is going to be possible without some of those "fairly
technical mechanisms" (e.g. named graphs or ), but there's a lot to be gained from simpler measures. One reason some of those more complicated measures become attractive is that they can fulfill the need for a standard way to discuss an URI as an identifier directly and not as a pointer to something identified, so that one can make assertions about it as an identifier without making assertions about the thing it identifies. This is subtle and can cause confusion, as we are seeing on this list in the last few days.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 10, 2014, at 1:11 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
>
> More the second than the first.
>
> For the record, I do not think it dangerous or crazy for you or anyone
> to publish assertions using VIAF URIs as their subject, but I do believe
> there are potentially some serious implications when one does such a
> thing. Anyone can literally say anything about anything so, regardless,
> it is a real issue that exists today and must be managed versus outlawed or
> otherwise made impossible. It has generally been managed to date by
> people choosing /not/ to make assertions using other's URIs as subjects.
>
> If people or organizations mint their own URI and make assertions using
> that URI as the subject, then, yes, it helps with managing provenance
> and a number of other long-term issues.
>
> There's been lots of talk about provenance and the like in a global
> graph of data, but I feel most of those discussions rely on fairly
> technical mechanisms, the complexity of which outweigh the simplicity of
> minting one's own URI. (Also, the provenance statements will need their own
> URIs!)
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
>
> On 07/10/2014 12:43 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> Kevin--
>>
>> Are you arguing in what I quote below:
>>
>> 1) That it is dangerous or "crazy" for me to publish assertions using VIAF URIs as their subject, period?
>>
>> or
>>
>> 2) That it is better for me to mint URIs of my own because it helps us manage provenance, or helps me maintain my data over the long term, or for some other reason(s)? (While I also maintain authority/co-reference information that will be required by anyone who wants to interpret my assertions, e.g. "ex:abcd bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd .")
>>
>> Or something else entirely that I'm not getting?
>>
>> ---
>> A. Soroka
>> The University of Virginia Library
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:25 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, with a bf:Authority approach, one could do this:
>>>
>>> ex:1234 bf:creator ex:abcd
>>>
>>> ex:abcd rdf:type bf:Person
>>> ex:abcd bf:note "This person came here once in 1965. It was cool."
>>> ex:abcd bf:hasAuthority viaf:abcd
>>>
>>> If a VIAF URI were used, this might happen:
>>>
>>> ex:1234 bf:creator viaf:abcd
>>> viaf:abcd bf:note "This person came here once in 1965. It was cool."
>>>
>>> Are there mechanisms we could put in place to hopefully inhibit this? Probably, but crazy data finds its way everywhere and it's probably impossible to stop this from happening.

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 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