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  January 2015

BIBFRAME January 2015

Subject:

Re: Constrained vs unconstrained schemas

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:13:08 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (347 lines)

Joe, I like the suggestion of using classes. Some RDF-using communities 
seem to be very class-heavy, others less so. The implications of lots of 
classes vs. a few classes still isn't clear to me in terms of how it 
affects practice, but clearly classes provide functionality that we  may 
not be used to exploiting.

On 1/7/15 8:49 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
> I agree with you that mapping BF to "constrained" (typed) RDA will be 
> necessary and useful.
>
> At the end of my message, I tried to make the point that this won't be 
> possible.  I used classes but it is better to use properties instead.  
> Once you map rdam:reproductionOfManifestation to bf:reproduction and 
> rdai:reproductionOfItem to bf:reproduction, you can't go back the 
> other way. That is, bf:reproduction does not contain the information 
> you need to choose the correct RDA property in the BF -> RDA mapping.  
> You no longer know whether you came from reproductionOfManifestation 
> or reproductionOfItem.

I suspect that "mapping" is not the right term here, and maybe that's 
the issue. If you look at some of the recent presentations that Gordon 
has done,[1] you see that you can create relationships between terms, 
e.g. bf:reproduction is a super-property of 
rdam:reproductionOfManifestation and rdai:reproductionOfItem. You don't 
change the two RDA properties to bf:reproduction -- they stay what they 
are, and you navigate the relationship. That doesn't entirely solve the 
problem, because as is always the case with data it is very hard to go 
from less specific to more specific. However, I go back to an earlier 
question, which is: what do we need to do with this data, and under what 
circumstances do these differences matter? For example, if you have

resourceA a bf:Work .
resourceA bf:workTitle "Moby Dick" .
resourceA bf:creator http://..
resource7 a rdac:Work .
resourceA bf:language "ENG" .
resource8 a rdac:Expression .
resource8 rdae:language "ENG" .
resource8 rdae:expressionOf resource3 .
resource3 rdaw:workTitle "Moby Dick" .
resource3 rdaw:personalCreator http://...

You actually have a lot of information here. If this information exists 
in open linked data space, you can find resources that are in language 
ENG, and you have essentially the same (well, close to the same) data 
elements for the RDA and the BF descriptions, even though they are 
structured differently. In both you have access to the Work and 
Expression information. (This would be more easily explained with a 
diagram ;-))

As Gordon says, however, there may still be differences. bf:Work may not 
be one-to-one on *all* information with rdac:Work+rdac:Expression. But 
linked data is designed to be used across heterogeneous data, and allows 
for gaps and differences. It will probably be no less precise than any 
previous mappings that we did (e.g. MARC to Dublin Core - from 1100 data 
elements to 15!).

The question, therefore, is not "Can I map property1 to propertyZ" but 
"do I have the information I need?" This involves not just property 
definitions but the whole meaning provided by the graph.

This describes an open world usage, and doesn't touch on the question of 
what data our library system/closed world will use. There can be a 
considerable difference between the closed world and the open world, and 
many enterprise systems (banks, medical data...) export to the open 
world data that is very different from their internal view of their 
data. What I find unclear at the moment in library-land is: what we are 
designing for, and, once again, what do we expect to do with it?


kc
[1] http://www.slideshare.net/GordonDunsire






>
>
> Joe
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 8:08 AM
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Constrained vs unconstrained schemas
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> FWIW . . .
>> We are working with the "constrained" version (with a nod to Karen's 
>> comments re use of the term 'constrained') of RDA/RDF and mapping 
>> that to a BIBFRAME core vocabulary precisely because we don't know 
>> what a cataloging input UI will look like post-MARC or how BF will be 
>> generated from that input.  Since BF and RDA have different 
>> structures, our thinking is to use the "constrained" RDA/RDF so that 
>> the RDA data can be reconstructed easily and losslessly back into its 
>> WEMI entities structure from BF should that prove useful or necessary.
>>
>> -Nancy
>>
>> Nancy J. Fallgren
>> Metadata Specialist Librarian
>> Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
>> Technical Services Division
>> National Library of Medicine
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gordon Dunsire [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 7:42 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Constrained vs unconstrained schemas
>>
>> All
>>
>> Many applications based on RDF data will need to know what type of 
>> thing is being described by a triple. An application can get that 
>> information implicitly, from the domain and range of the triple's 
>> property, or explicitly, from a separate triple stating the thing's 
>> type. There is no guarantee that such a type triple exists, or is 
>> connected to the local graph, or can be retrieved from the global graph.
>>
>> The quality (effectiveness, efficiency, etc.) of these applications 
>> is likely to depend on the accuracy and completeness of entity 
>> typing. More sophisticated applications are likely to depend also on 
>> the semantic coherence of the results of typing.
>>
>> Publishers of data based on specific ontologies should be able to 
>> choose whether to provide type triples implicitly or explicitly. 
>> Using properties constrained by domain and range allows implicit 
>> typing by applications intended to consume the data. The maintainers 
>> of the specific ontology are probably the best agents to provide data 
>> publishers and consumers with the RDF element sets for the 
>> constrained properties and, indeed, the type classes used to 
>> constrain them.
>>
>> Publishing data using constrained properties does not prevent its use 
>> by applications that are simple, low-quality, or do not require 
>> entity typing.
>> Such applications may use RDF maps to dumb-down constrained 
>> properties to unconstrained versions, or simply ignore domains and 
>> ranges. The RDF maps may be local to the application, or provided by 
>> the maintainers of the constrained elements or some other agent.
>>
>> I agree that the publishers of library data in RDF should be able to 
>> specify how it is intended to be used by libraries: this is a 
>> closed-world assumption. The BF model seems to be mainly influenced 
>> by the data currently used by library applications based on MARC21; 
>> the FRBR model reflects the functional requirements to support 
>> world-wide consensus on user tasks. I think both of these bases, data 
>> and users, are good indicators of the needs of future library 
>> applications. I therefore think it is a benefit that the BIBFRAME 
>> Initiative (BFI), IFLA, and the JSC for RDA are providing constrained 
>> RDF element sets for BF, FRBR, ISBD, and RDA. I also think the 
>> provision of unconstrained element sets is a good thing, together 
>> with mappings from constrained to unconstrained properties. I do not 
>> know whether BFI intends to publish unconstrained properties. I do 
>> know that the FRBR Review Group decided not to do so because of its 
>> plans to consolidate the FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD models (now 
>> approaching completion), and that the ISBD Review Group has an 
>> unconstrained element set ready for publication in the near future 
>> with a corresponding map.
>>
>> The JSC and ISBD Review Group have collaborated on a map between the 
>> ISBD and RDA elements [1]. The map, based on an updated version of 
>> the agreed element alignment [2] will be published in the next few 
>> weeks. It necessarily uses unconstrained properties to link 
>> well-formed ISBD and RDA data together, and was a stimulus to the 
>> development of the unconstrained ISBD element set. As noted in the 
>> pre-print cited by Karen, there is also a map between ISBD and FRBR 
>> classes which requires local semantics for "aspect" relationships [3].
>>
>> I am not convinced that the assumption that RDA Work and RDA 
>> Expression are equivalent to/same as BF Work is a useful or valid one 
>> [4]. I think there may be similar problems with RDA Manifestation, 
>> RDA Item, and BF Instance.
>> The ISBD/RDA experience shows that careful consideration of implicit 
>> semantics in definitions and scope notes is required, as well as 
>> explicit semantics in domain, range, and sub-property relationships.
>>
>> So I do not advise mapping either the constrained or unconstrained 
>> RDA properties to constrained BF properties without further 
>> clarification of the class relationships. It is ok to map constrained 
>> BF properties to unconstrained RDA properties. A full map between RDA 
>> and BF requires the use of unconstrained RDA and BF properties. And, 
>> by definition, a roundtrip from constrained to unconstrained to 
>> constrained is somewhat lossy (as well as incoherent).
>>
>> I think we need further investigation of the relationship between the 
>> RDA/FRBR models and BF, probably best carried out by the JSC and BFI. 
>> And we need to test interoperability using orthodox RDA and BF data. 
>> Fortunately, we now have the beta of version 3 of RIMMF to create 
>> orthodox RDA data [5].
>> So perhaps we can do something useful with RDA and BF data after the 
>> Jane-athon [6].
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Gordon
>>
>> [1] http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-Chair-4.pdf
>> [2]
>> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/OtherDocumentation/ISBD2RD 
>>
>> A%20Alignment%20v1_1.pdf
>> [3]
>> http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/isbd/OtherDocumentation/resourc 
>>
>> e-wemi.pdf
>> [4] http://www.gordondunsire.com/pubs/pres/RDAMARCBIBFRAME.pptx
>> [5] http://www.rdaregistry.info/rimmf/index.html
>> [6] http://www.rdatoolkit.org/janeathon
>>
>> If it is a camel, a weasel, and a whale, then it is a cloud (inferred 
>> from Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2).
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joseph Kiegel
>> Sent: 05 January 2015 23:21
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Constrained vs unconstrained schemas
>>
>> Thanks, this helps a lot.  I had viewed domains as more restrictive 
>> than they are.
>>
>> I agree with your larger question that we need to understand the 
>> operations that will be performed on our data in RDF.  Perhaps we 
>> can't anticipate what other people will do, but we should be able to 
>> specify what libraries will do.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 1:38 PM
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Constrained vs unconstrained schemas
>>
>>> Joseph, You might want to look at my blog post on RDF classes:
>>>
>>> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2014/11/classes-in-rdf.html
>>>
>>> and the article by Baker-Coyle-Petiya
>>>
>>> http://kcoyle.net/LHTv32n4preprint.pdf
>>>
>>> There are actually no "constraints" in RDF, just potential inferences.
>>> The inferences are based on the stated domains and ranges of the
>> properties.
>>> There are examples of this in the Baker et al article using RDA,
>>> FRBRer and BIBFRAME. There is no conflict with a subject being
>>> inferred as being an instance of more than one class as long as the
>>> classes themselves are not declared as disjoint. (The article explains
>>> this better than I can in an email. ) The documentation for RDA,
>>> BIBFRAME and FRBRer all presents classes as determinants of data
>>> structure. This, to me, is a common error in RDF development. That any
>>> subject can be an instance of more than one class is necessary for the
>>> RDF graph's flexibility, and should be proof that classes do not
>> constraint your data to a single graph structure.
>>>
>>> The declared domains of properties only come into play if inferencing
>>> is applied. A big question, therefore, is whether any inferencing will
>>> be done at all over the data. The utility of, for example, the RDA
>>> classes to me is that it allows you to do simple queries for
>>> categories of triples, e.g. "give me all of the work triples for the
>>> manifestation with this ISBN." Other than that you can ignore the fact
>>> that domains have been declared if they don't serve your needs.
>>>
>>> Your question, however, brings up a much larger question that I
>>> haven't seen discussed anywhere, which is: what kinds of operations do
>>> we expect to perform over library data in RDF? That question really
>>> should be answered before domains and ranges are defined, because that
>>> is the function of those capabilities of RDF.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/5/15 12:52 PM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>>>> A comparison of BIBFRAME and RDA in RDF (referred to below as RDA),
>>>> in an attempt to map RDA to BIBFRAME, raised the issue of constrained
>>>> vs unconstrained schemas.
>>>>
>>>> The full set of RDA properties is constrained by the RDA classes of
>>>> Agent, Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item.  That is, each
>>>> property is related to a specific class when appropriate: e.g.
>>>> abridgementOfExpression and abridgementOfWork.  A parallel set of
>>>> properties has been created where the constraints of class are lifted:
>>>> e.g. abridgementOf.  This unconstrained version of RDA loses the
>>>> context of some properties but is intended to facilitate mapping to
>>>> schemas that do not use the FRBR model underlying RDA.
>>>>
>>>> BIBFRAME is a constrained schema, but constrained by different 
>>>> classes:
>>>> Agent, Work, and Instance.  There is no unconstrained version of
>>>> BIBFRAME.
>>>>
>>>> A mapping of RDA to BIBFRAME presents choices and challenges.
>>>>
>>>> Is it better to use constrained RDA, which causes explicit conflicts
>>>> of
>>>> domain:  e.g. mapping rdam:reproductionOfManifestation to
>>>> bf:reproduction and rdai:reproductionOfItem to bf:reproduction?
>>>>
>>>> Or is it better to use unconstrained RDA, which still has conflicts
>>>> (an unconstrained domain vs a constrained one in BIBFRAME): e.g.
>>>> mapping rdau:reproductionOf to bf:reproduction?
>>>>
>>>> It is not obvious which is the better choice.  Although perhaps we
>>>> need both mappings, each with its own problems regarding original and
>>>> destination domains.
>>>>
>>>> A corollary of the question is that any roundtrip RDA -> BF -> RDA is
>>>> lossy. If constrained RDA is used as a starting point, RDA classes
>>>> are lost in the mapping itself, and if unconstrained RDA is used,
>>>> classes are lost prior to mapping. Either way, RDA classes cannot be
>>>> recovered in a BF -> constrained RDA mapping.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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

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