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: 2-tier BIBFRAME

From:

Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 31 Jan 2015 16:30:19 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (254 lines)

Correct. Therefore <books/123456789#this> (book) is not the same as
<books/123456789> (document about the book).

In my first example I used the book resource, in the PROV example the
book document.

Normally I use foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf/foaf:primaryTopic relationships
between the two.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> URIs are opaque. Choosing between 303s or hashes has no influence on the semantics.
>
> Your version says the book was derived from the record. Read the triple out loud if you don't believe me. ;-)
>
>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 10:11 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Notice that I used non-hash URIs, i.e. <books/123456789> is the
>> document about the book and <books/123456789#this> is the book itself
>> (not directly accessible over HTTP).
>>
>> So my example says "the document about the book was derived from the
>> MARC document" -- the book is not even in the picture. I don't see a
>> contradiction here. And the derivation mechanism could be SPARQL.
>>
>> In general PROV seems to have some traction, while I haven't seen
>> anyone using POWDER lately.
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Exactly. I would suggest this instead, though:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
>>>
>>> Otherwise the cataloger is saying the book is derived from the record, which is backward
>>>
>>>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree, _:record can become <record/123> and live on Linked Data. But
>>>> it would be more of provenance metadata to the real bibliographic
>>>> Linked Data. Something like that:
>>>>
>>>> <books/123456789> prov:wasDerivedFrom <record/123> .
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#wasDerivedFrom
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

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

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