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  November 2014

BIBFRAME November 2014

Subject:

Re: Classes or profiles? - was: [Topic] Types

From:

Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 8 Nov 2014 09:13:14 +0900

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 08:08:26AM -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > Once a class is declared to have an rdfs:subClassOf relation to
> > another class, that declaration becomes part of the formal semantics
> > of the class.  Once a property is related to a class through
> > rdfs:domain and rdfs:range, that declaration becomes part of the
> > formal semantics of the property.
> 
> It's not clear to me what you mean by "the formal semantics". There is
> not a single formal semantics for a set of triples. There are the
> various semantics under RDF, RDFS, OWL, etc., which are compatible by
> design, but are _certainly distinct_.

As in [1], let
    
1)  P rdfs:domain C

This entails:

2)  C rdf:type rdfs:Class

One may choose not to _apply_ RDFS inferencing in order to materialize
triple 2 in a given dataset, but that does not change the fact that this
is what "P rdfs:domain C" actually entails.  I am not aware of any
RDF-family semantics by which triple 2 would not be inferred.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain

> > Whether membership of an instance in a domain or range class is
> > _asserted_ in a given dataset, or _inferred_, is purely a practical
> > question having to do with things like "expense," "response time",
> > or as Simeon points out, whether it "make[s] the data easy and
> > efficient to use" or provides "clarity of intent" to someone trying
> > to grok the Turtle data. 
> 
> To label something "purely a practical question" is very far from
> dismissing it, if we expect to do anything with Linked Data other than
> talk about it.

By saying it is a practical question, I am not dismissing it in the
least!  I emphatically agree that the practicalities are very important
if we expect to do anything with Linked Data other than talk about it.
And if you say, for example, that this-or-that _must_ be asserted in the
data, and not just left to be inferred, then there must be a way to say
that.  The BIBFRAME stack _does_ provide a way to say that; it's just
that that way is orthogonal to the RDF semantics.

> >  Simply leaving a formal-semantic relationship unasserted, to be
> >  clear, has no affect on formal semantics.  
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by a
> "formal-semantic relationship"?

In

    P rdfs:domain C

the subject P is related object C via the property rdfs:domain, and that
relationship is subject to semantics that are "formally" defined ("This 
document... provides an exact formal specification" [2]).

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/

> > I do not understand the point of coining lots of new classes for the
> > BIBFRAME vocabulary.  An RDF vocabulary cannot itself provide ways
> > to prevent "multiple, incompatible ways" of using the vocabulary,
> > which I take to be Rob's objective.  If data consistency, clarity of
> > intent (for humans), and efficiency of processing are indeed the
> > objectives, I do not understand why the discussion here is about
> > trying to do this in BIBFRAME's RDF vocabulary, which does not
> > provide the language for exerting such control.
> 
> This is not at all, to my understanding, a matter of control. 
> [...] The idea is not at all, to my understanding, to "to prevent 'multiple,
> incompatible ways' of using the vocabulary", 

I misunderstood!

> It is a matter of providing a flexible and easy-to-use means of
> extension.  [...] it is to provide a straightforward and simple way of
> extending the vocabulary. That is a far more powerful and lasting
> effect.

I'm not following... Coining lots of new classes provides a simple
way of extending the vocabulary?  I can see that coining new classes
does indeed extend the vocabulary, but I'm missing the point...

Tom

-- 
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>

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 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