Your _:record deserves to live in the Linked Data tier. It is a creative work in its own right. It has creators (e.g. catalogers), a creation date, and is about something else (the book). The link to the book means you can factor our all those cached strings that are swirling around in confusion in the _:record.

Jeff

> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> What you suggest is inevitable in order to produce correct Linked Data
> descriptions.
> 
> But it does not address the problem with which I started this thread,
> namely that BIBFRAME tries to describe both MARC records and the real
> world. My argument is that the semantically correct way would be to
> address each issue with a separate RDF vocabulary.
> 
>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I see two resource tiers rather than two vocabulary tiers
>> 
>> 1) real things (which you can assign an http URI for, but CAN'T GET via HTTP protocol)
>> 2) descriptions of real things, which you can also assign as http URIs but CAN GET via HTTP
>> 
>> Both are worth describing in their own right, as long as the two don't get mixed up (hence the different URIs). I don't think you need separate vocabularies to do this. OTOH, mixing and matching vocabulary terms when describing either/or can be revealing to different audiences.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 7:26 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Jeff,
>>> 
>>> there is one reality, but it can be described in many different ways.
>>> And yes, there should be a separate RDF vocabulary for each level.
>>> 
>>> Here's a completely fictional example to illustrate what I mean:
>>> 
>>> 1. MARC-syntax level
>>> 
>>> _:record a bfm:Record ;
>>> bfm:recordType "Book" ;
>>> bfm:isbn "123456789" ;
>>> bfm:title "The Greatest Works" ;
>>> bfm:author1givenName "John" ;
>>> bfm:author1familyName "Johnson" ;
>>> bfm:author2givenName "Tom" ;
>>> bfm:author2familyName "Thompson" .
>>> 
>>> 2. Linked Data level
>>> 
>>> <books/123456789#this> a bld:Work, bldtypes:Book ;
>>> dct:title "The Greatest Works" ;
>>> bld:isbn "123456789" ;
>>> bld:authors (<persons/john-johnson#this> <persons/tom-thompson#this>) .
>>> 
>>> <persons/john-johnson#this> a foaf:Person, bld:Author ;
>>> foaf:givenName "John" ;
>>> foaf:familyName "Johnson".
>>> 
>>> <persons/tom-thompson#this> a foaf:Person, bld:Author ;
>>> foaf:givenName "Tom" ;
>>> foaf:familyName "Thompson".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Both examples contain the same information, but it is encoded very
>>> differently. Clearly the Linked Data style is preferred, and the MARC
>>> vocabulary could in theory go away when there are no more legacy MARC
>>> systems to support.
>>> 
>>> I haven't seen any actual MARC data, but if someone has a simple
>>> example, we could work on that.
>>> 
>>> Martynas
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Tim,
>>>> 
>>>> The semantics behind MARC is based on reality. MARC cares (may) too much
>>>> about which names and codes should be used in various structural positions,
>>>> but there are real things lurking behind those.
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Tim Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Karen,
>>>> 
>>>> Aren't the semantics behind MARC just the semantics of card catalogs and
>>>> ISBD, with its nine areas of bibliographic description? ISBD has already
>>>> been published by IFLA as a linked data vocabulary
>>>> (http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/25.html)--although, sadly, they
>>>> left out the punctuation ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Tim A. Thompson
>>>> Metadata Librarian (Spanish/Portuguese Specialty)
>>>> Princeton University Library
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> What if it was two different vocabularies, rather than two different
>>>>> levels of abstraction?
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is only one reality. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Karen,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> lets call those specifications BM (BIBFRAME MARC) and BLD (BIBFRAME
>>>>>> Linked Data).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What I meant is two different levels of abstractions, each with its
>>>>>> own vocabulary and semantics. And a mapping between the two, for which
>>>>>> SPARQL would be really convenient.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the 2-tier approach, these are the main tasks:
>>>>>> 1. convert MARC data to RDF at the syntax level (BM)
>>>>>> 2. design semantically correct bibliographic Linked Data structure (BLD)
>>>>>> 3. define a mapping from BM to BLD
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So in that sense I don't think it is similar to profiles, as profiles
>>>>>> deal with a subset of properties, but they still come from the same
>>>>>> vocabulary.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A somewhat similar approach is W3C work on relational databases:
>>>>>> 1. direct mapping to RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/
>>>>>> 2. customizable declarative mapping to RDF: http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Martynas
>>>>>> graphityhq.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Martynas,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that the requirement to accommodate legacy MARC is a hindrance
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the development of a more forward-looking RDF vocabulary. I think that
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> suggest of using SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries is not unlike the concepts of
>>>>>>> selected views or application profiles -- where you work with different
>>>>>>> subsets of a fuller data store, based on need.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I wonder, however, how an RDF model designed "from scratch" would
>>>>>>> interact
>>>>>>> with a model designed to replicate MARC. I know that people find this
>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>> way too far out there, but I honestly don't see how we'll get to "real"
>>>>>>> RDF
>>>>>>> if we hang on not only to MARC but to the cataloging rules we have
>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>> (including RDA). We'd have to start creating natively RDF data, and
>>>>>>> until we
>>>>>>> understand what that means without burdening ourselves with pre-RDF
>>>>>>> cataloging concepts, it's hard to know what that means.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All that to say that I would love to see a test implementation of your
>>>>>>> idea!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 1/30/15 9:03 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> after following discussions and developments in the BIBFRAME space, it
>>>>>>> seems to me that it tries to be too many things for too many people.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think many of the problems stem from the fact that (to my
>>>>>>> understanding) BIBFRAME is supposed to accommodate legacy MARC data
>>>>>>> and be the next-generation solution for bibliographic Linked Data.
>>>>>>> Attempting to address both cases, it fails to address either of them
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In my opinion, a possible solution could be to have 2 tiers of RDF
>>>>>>> vocabularies:
>>>>>>> - a lower-level one that precisely captures the semantics of MARC
>>>>>>> - a higher-level one that is designed from scratch for bibliographic
>>>>>>> Linked
>>>>>>> Data
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The conversion between the two (or at least from the lower to the
>>>>>>> higher level) could be expressed simply as SPARQL CONSTRUCT queries.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Martynas
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>> 
>>>>