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  March 2015

BIBFRAME March 2015

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME and RDA/RDF

From:

Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:22:30 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (110 lines)

I agree with your point about strings vs identifiers in RDA.  Depending 
whether rdaw:mediumOfPerformance contains a URI or a literal, it must be 
conditionally mapped to bf:musicMedium or bf:musicMediumNote.

However, while BIBFRAME properties have their ranges set either to a literal 
or a URI, the paired properties needed to cover both cases are not always 
defined.  For example, for rdam:mediaType, rdam:carrierType and 
rdae:contentType, the value may be either a literal or URI under RDA.  Of 
course, we would prefer URIs in linked data.  On the BIBFRAME side, the 
corresponding properties are mediaCategory, carrierCategory and 
contentCategory, all of which have a range of bf:Category.  Of the 
properties with a domain of bf:Category, we have only bf:categoryValue in 
which to put a value, and its range is a literal.  There is no 
bf:categoryUri with a domain of bf:Category and a range of rdfs:Resource, 
which is needed to contain category values when they are URIs.

The same thing is true with identifiers in BIBFRAME.  Conceivably, you could 
decompose identifier URIs into bf:identifierScheme (range: rdfs:Resource) 
and bf:identifierValue (range: rdfs:Literal), but that is doing it the hard 
way.  It would be better to have a property bf:identifierUri with a domain 
of bf:Identifier and a range of rdfs:Resource, which could contain an 
identifier expressed as a URI.  As it stands now, even bf:uri has to have a 
literal as its value.


Joe

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:05 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME and RDA/RDF

> Joseph, thanks for doing a comparison. Note that BF has about 400 
> properties, while RDA has nearly a thousand, so it is true that RDA is 
> more detailed that BF. However, RDA has virtually no class 
> relationships -- it's essentially a flat data space. This will have 
> implications for the use of RDA in actual systems, since class 
> relationships help you do things like "search all properties in the title 
> class."
>
> On 3/27/15 8:04 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Identifiers:
>> Under the influence of MARC, BIBFRAME has a large set of properties for 
>> identifiers while RDA is limited.
>
> The RDA rules often allow either strings or identifiers. RDA in RDF is 
> essentially silent in most cases on whether the value for a property is 
> expected to be a string or an identifier, and therefore it can presumably 
> be either. This, however, is highly problematic when working with RDF 
> data. In general, it's never good to not know what kind of data to expect 
> for a field in your metadata -- it complicates input interfaces and the 
> programs that use the data. However, if you want to have the possibility 
> in your data to accommodate both strings and identifiers, you are kind of 
> forced to create different properties for those different choices, which 
> would mean nearly doubling the number of RDA properties. Although I find 
> the use of blank nodes in BF to be a complicating factor, I assume that in 
> many cases those blank nodes are there as a way around this 
> string-vs-identifier problem, allowing each statement to point to a blank 
> node that can have either or both.
>
> To me this is evidence that we need to re-iterate back from our attempts 
> to create a viable RDF version of library data to the cataloging rules, 
> and create at least a subset of the rules that can support a viable data 
> format with clearly defined data values for each property. The "string or 
> identifier" in the rules just isn't workable in a data format.
>
> kc
>
>>
>> Subjects:
>> RDA is not yet able to express subject relationships (RDA chapters 33-37) 
>> and BIBFRAME has a mechanism for this.
>>
>> Holdings Information:
>> Although not fully elaborated, BIBFRAME has properties for holdings 
>> information while RDA has almost nothing.
>>
>>
>> RDA is richer than BIBFRAME
>>
>> Series:
>> RDA provides properties for all parts of series statements, while 
>> BIBFRAME has a single property:  series.
>>
>> Notes:
>> RDA has more properties for specific types of notes.  While BIBFRAME has 
>> note properties, the term "note" in a property name may mean simply that 
>> its range is a literal, e.g. findingAidNote, musicMediumNote.
>>
>> Technical Details of a Resource:
>> RDA has a large number of properties for technical details of resources 
>> such as polarity, playingSpeed, fileSize, etc.  It is not clear how 
>> BIBFRAME handles this type of information.
>>
>> Inverse Properties:
>> RDA provides inverse properties (e.g. animator and animatorOf) while 
>> BIBFRAME lacks them.
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> 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

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