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: bf:Title queries from use cases

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:02:05 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (292 lines)

> In fact relying on bf:hasInstance is pretty impractical in the open, because a system would have to know all the places to query that may have new Instances that point to them, and the bf:Work would become prohibitively large.

It's not generally preferred even in a closed system, because it requires a transaction across two resources to create an instance, whereas bf:instanceOf does not.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:44 AM, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Rob,
> Taking a small snip from your email below:
>  
> * Multiplied by two ways to get from Work to Instance (bf:hasInstance, bf:instanceOf)
>  
> I would say “two ways to get _between_ Work and Instance”; only bf:hasInstance goes from Work to Instance. Nevertheless…
>  
> Are you saying that because there are 2 links, one in each direction, that it unnecessarily overly complicates the ways of querying between resources?
>  
> In regular cataloging workflow, we believe most will use:
> bf:Instance bf:instanceOf bfWork;
> and more rarely,
> bf:Work bf:hasInstance bf:Work,
> but didn’t want to preclude doing it that way.
>  
> For  example, a movie comes out and the bf:Work and bf:Instance are created, and then subsequent DVD and other formats come out, which will mean more Instances pointing back to the original Work.
> In fact relying on bf:hasInstance is pretty impractical in the open, because a system would have to know all the places to query that may have new Instances that point to them, and the bf:Work would become prohibitively large.
>  
> Thanks for any comments, Nate
>  
>  
> -----------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> LA308, Mail Stop 4402
> Library of Congress
> Washington DC 20540
>  
>  
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:Title queries from use cases
>  
>  
> Hi Karen,
>  
> Yes, the query in the UC doc is one of the many, many possible ways to encode a title using the current vocabulary.
>  
> There is, in English rather than SPARQL:
>  
> * Work with bf:title ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/title.html )
> * Instance with bf:title
> * Work with bf:titleStatement ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleStatement.html )
> * Instance with bf:titleStatement
> * Work with bf:label ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/label.html ) N.B. look at the example here
> * Instance with bf:label
> * Work with bf:workTitle of a bf:Title
> * Instance with bf:instanceTitle of a bf:Title
> * Work with bf:titleVariation of a bf:Title 
> * Instance with bf:titleVariation of a bf:Title 
> * Instance with bf:abbreviatedTitle of a bf:Title
> * Instance with bf:keyTitle of a bf:Title 
>  
> * Multiplied by two ways to get from Work to Instance (bf:hasInstance, bf:instanceOf)
>  
> * Multiplied by the matrix of title-string-holding attributes of bf:Title:
>   * bf:Title uses bf:titleValue alone
>   * bf:Title uses bf:titleValue and bf:subtitle
>   * ...plus bf:partTitle, bf:partNumber, bf:titleAttribute, bf:titleQualifier 
>   * bf:label could also be used instead of bf:titleValue
>  
> And this without translation, transliteration or the other complexities introduced in the thread's discussion.
>  
> Notes:
>  
> * Presumably one could have a HeldItem/HeldMaterial with a title different from its Instance, if someone physically modified a particular copy.  This isn't in the model at the moment, but thinking in an archival way rather than library way I don't see why not.  I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
>  
> Rob
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Because I have trouble thinking about these things in the abstract, I made a small file with all of the BF properties that have the domain of bf:Title:
> 
> http://kcoyle.net/temp/BFtitle.ttl
> 
> That shows me that all of the properties have the range rdfs:literal.
> 
> Note that the bf:title property is not among these -- it is defined as:
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/vocab/title>
>     a rdf:Property ;
>     rdfs:comment "Word, character, or group of words and/or characters that is a name given to a resource" ;
>     rdfs:label "Title" ;
>     rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
> 
> Because rdfs:domain is not defined, it defaults to rdf:Resource. In the recent examples that I have seen, the literal bf:title repeats the literal values associated with the title types that take URI values (fragments below):
> 
>     bf:title "The adventures of Tom Sawyer", "adventures of Tom Sawyer"@x-bf-sortable ;
>     bf:workTitle <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7> ;
>     a bf:Text, bf:Work .
> ...
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7>
> 
>     bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
>     a bf:Title .
> 
> 
> Kevin and Rob, this appears to match the query in the use cases document:
> 
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
> 
> for a simple title search.
> 
> Therefore, is it the case that a full title search would need to include
> 
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>     ....
> 
> as well as a query using
> 
>    ?work rdf:type bf:Title
> 
> ?
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/28/14, 2:40 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 1:53 PM, Kevin Ford wrote:
> I believe Rob is trying to underscore the fact that there are variable ways to record a Work's title (not to mention an Instance's) and, because there are variable ways to do it, the query becomes, well, ridiculous.
> 
> Kevin, yes, I agree, although it gets even more ridiculous when the work title is a URI, which then must be resolved to a string (except when the work title is a string). The question, then, is what is the use case for title as URI?
> 
> 
> While the bf:Title construct exists as an attempt to address /some/ of those less common cases (such as a cataloger assigned titles), it remains problematic because it is hard to square that particular use case with existence of "bf:formDesignation" or "bf:titleAttribute," the definitions of which strongly suggest they are aspects of the Work, not a "title."  Since these properties are associated with a bf:Title resource (and a bf:Title resource is distinct from a Work or Instance), they raise vocabular/modelling questions.  And, because they have corollaries in MARC, they also evoke current MARC-cataloging practice.
> 
> I'm not clear on what you mean here by the bf:Title construct. There is a bf:Title class, which could help matters in some circumstances, since one can search using rdf:type and therefore retrieve all predicates that are sub-classes of bf:Title. At that point, however, the next step in the SPARQL query would need to be the same for all titles to work easily. Not knowing up front if the title will be a URI or a string could make a difference in formulating a query.
> 
> 
> So, I think these last questions are the first ones we need to find agreement on.
> 
> 1) Is a title an attribute or property of a Work or Instance? Do you think of a "title" as synonymous with a Work (or Instance), that is, the thing you are describing?
> 
>     OR
> 
> 2) Is a title a type of Thing unto itself, one that can have its own identifier, and is related to but otherwise distinct from the Work or Instance you are describing? It is something that is associated with a Work but is not necessarily a property or attribute of the Work?  Though this is not only way to look at this, one wants to ask: Are titles re-usable?
> 
> It seems to me that the question is a bit different (or perhaps there is yet another question) which is:
> 
> 3) Do we need say things about the title? If so, it must be a "thing" with a URI. If not, then it can be a literal string.
> 
> And an even bigger question:
> 
> 4) Is there any of our data that can be a literal string, or must there always be the option of saying something about the data itself? If so, then our vocabulary becomes quite complex, and that will be evident in the searches that can be run against it.
> 
> I wonder if we aren't imposing our closed world needs (e.g. the innards of library systems, and of the library-to-library catalog data exchange) with what will instead work best in a more open environment. If I wish to link my authors or titles with, say, Wikipedia, what are my "data about data" needs? Are they as detailed as the ones I would use to make decisions about copy cataloging?
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to the above questions.  I'm interested in gaining a better understanding where everyone is coming from, which I hope will then be an indicator about which way to take this thread.  And I certainly do not see the above as precluding one of the two possibilities as they currently exist, nor do I find this approach to be a replacement for use cases.  I'm just trying to determine if there is an underlying point-of-view issue here.
> 
> [ For my answer: I see it as (1).  I view titles as attributes or properties of Works and Instances, not things unto themselves.]
> 
> Yours,
> Kevin
> 
> [1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=21183
> [2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=22684
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/28/2014 01:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Rob, I'm not sure that the use cases document is up to date with the
> current state of BF. As I stated before, here is an actual title "entry"
> from a recently converted MARC->BF:
> 
> 
>    bf:instanceTitle
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
> 
>      bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
> 
>      a bf:Title .
> 
> bf:title exists, as do bf:titleVariation, bf:titleType, and
> bf:titleStatement. I believe that these would change the SPARQL query.
> If you'd like, I can create a small test set.
> 
> kc
> 
> On 7/28/14, 10:26 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> (Was alleys, before that titles)
> 
> From the use cases document:
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>     ...
> 
> 
> I think this needs to be something like...
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>       { ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>     UNION
>       { ?work bf:titleStatement "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>     UNION
>       { ?work bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>     UNION
>       {
>          { ?work bf:workTitle ?title }
>         UNION
>          { ?work bf:titleVariation ?title }
>        ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>     UNION
>       {
>          {  ?work bf:hasInstance ?inst }
>        UNION
>          { ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work}
>        UNION
>         { ?inst bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>        UNION
>         {
>           {  ?inst bf:instanceTitle ?title }
>            UNION
>            { ?inst bf:titleVariation ?title }
>          ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth"
>       }
>     ...
> 
> Yes? :(
> 
> And this is a simple case without punctuation, sub-titles, etc.
> 
> Rob
> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:53 AM, [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:
> 
>     http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases
> 
>     only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my
>     count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second
>     question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> 
>  
> --
> 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

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