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  October 2014

BIBFRAME October 2014

Subject:

Re: [Topic] Types

From:

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

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:54:01 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (120 lines)

I want to emphasize something that Rob Sanderson wrote below (I substantially agree with all of his points, but this one really stands out for me):

> The same pattern holds for all of the classes/predicates under consideration.


(To my reading, Rob is talking about specifying semantics in types or classes as against in properties.)

If you want to construct a model that is both flexible (doesn't begin with overly prescriptive semantics) and extensible (has the capability to incorporate more and more prescriptive semantics as needed), then this is the way to go. It's by no means impossible to extend models that rely heavily on specified relationships for semantics, but for technical reasons (some of which Rob mentions), it's much more work and the work doesn't usually get done as well.

Here's a way to think about those technical reasons, although it may seem a bit arcane at first:

It is generally easier to specify and publish relationships between entities than to specify and publish relationships between relationships. (Doing the latter generally requires more abstraction and more ancillary machinery.) So if Bibframe is in the business of publishing mostly relationships (properties, predicates, etc…) then creating extensions will require establishing new relationships with the published ones. If those extensions are useful and people use them, they will likely be absorbed and re-extended. And eventually, Bibframe will be in the position of "promoting" those original relationships into entities in their own right for sanity's sake. Many of us have seen this process occur many times. It's loosely analogous to relational database normalization (think of that moment when it becomes time to factor a field in a database table out into a new table with a relationship to the original, because it has become important to make remarks about the occurrences of values in that field, and there is no way to do that in the old table).

So choosing for an open and finely-grained class system (as against a finely-grained system of relationships) is a way of "future-proofing" the work and making it available for further extension and reuse. If Bibframe is serious about making itself available for use with many different models of description (a goal on the level of requirements), I'd say it's a requisite choice (a constraint on the level of architecture).

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Oct 27, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> Hi Ray, all,
> 
> Regarding the Titles and Types issues, I think there's another option as well, Type as Class. Or, if I may, Type as Type :)
> 
> For example:
> 
> _:x a bf:Work ;
>    bf:title _:y .
> _:y a bf:KeyTitle ;
>    rdf:value "..." .
> 
> 
> I believe this is desirable for the following reasons:
> 
> * Type as String Value just isn't good linked data. The type should be uniquely distinguishable, and clearly duplicate strings could be used by multiple communities independently.  This includes all the *Scheme predicates.
> 
> * Type as URI Value is better, but seems pointless when the URI could be more efficiently used as a class.  All of the bf:*Type predicates and bf:*Scheme predicates can just be rdf:type instead.
> 
> * It makes it easier to express domain and range.
> 
> * It's more readable in the RDF/XML serialization and makes any object mapping significantly easier.
> 
> * It reduces the number of properties, thereby making it easier to see what's going on in the model.  The subclasses are there below the main class for when they're needed rather than cluttering up the top level.
> 
> * It's easy to create new types without needing to worry about domain and range of properties, just by subClassing the main class.  Otherwise, if you want to have additional predicates associated with your new instance, the domain has to be the main class rather than a subClass, which is very poor modeling.
> 
> * It simplifies many other the predicates as the main class isn't necessary in the predicate name, that's just the class of the object that the predicate is being used with.  If the predicate should have its value constrained then it shouldn't have Literal as its range.  For example no need for identifierValue, instead it can be just value.
> 
> * It prevents the possible inconsistency of using a predicate that implies one type on its object, but the object has a different one (eg Work issn x ; x scheme "doi").
> 
> 
> So I think Example 2 is the closest, but a proposed Example 5:
> 
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:identifier  [
>         a bf:IssnIdentifier ;
>         rdf:value "12345678" .
>     ] . 
> 
> Where bf:IssnIdentifier is rdfs:subClassOf bf:Identifier, which is the range of bf:identifier.
> 
> The same pattern holds for all of the classes/predicates under consideration.
> 
> For titles:
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:title  [
>         a bf:KeyTitle ;
>         rdf:value "Lord of the Rings" .
>     ] .
> 
> For notes:
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:note  [
>         a bf:AdminHistNote ;
>         rdf:value "Administrative history note" .
>     ] .
> 
> For classifications:
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:classification  [
>         a bf:DdcClassification ;
>         rdf:value "234.5" .
>     ] .
> 
> For categories:
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:category  [
>         a bf:MediaCategory ;
>         rdf:value "something" .
>     ] .
> 
> For shelfmarks:
> <http://example.com/xyz//Work1>
>     bf:shelfmark  [
>         a bf:DdcShelfmark ;
>         rdf:value "12345678" .
>     ] .
> 
> Relators aren't needed as objects, and relationships between Works and Instances are just relationships and thus don't need fixing.
> 
> Roles are not types, and thus Provider doesn't fit any of the patterns proposed.  Roles are closer to relationships, and thus providerRole should be dropped. If the role is printing, then Work printer Provider, just like Work creator Person.  If the role is associated with the Provider object, then it ties it exclusively to that Work so it could never be reused.
> 
> And thus to answer the three questions:
> 
> 1.  Please don't do this at all :)  The model should not allow multiple, incompatible ways to say the same thing at the same time.
> 2.  Punning properties that can be either literal or a URI break tools and make many things, such as JSON-LD, much harder. Please don't do that either.
> 3.  Good documentation, with contributions from the community accepted in a timely fashion, plus encouragement in the specification to be an active participant in the work.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> 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

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