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  April 2015

BIBFRAME April 2015

Subject:

Re: How is Bibframe data stored?

From:

Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:36:43 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (251 lines)

Rob, you're talking about a small subset of the query space. Query
languages exist for a reason, as I'm sure you know well.

Another important issue here is query portability, where SPARQL also
wins hands down against any imperative solution.

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Many queries are handled perfectly well without graph traversal, which is
> where SPARQL shines (if you'll excuse the pun).
> Give me all books that were written by X author is a simple index.
>
> Secondly, not all information stored is needed for answering graph traversal
> queries, only the information needed for the use cases.  If no query is
> going to look at, for example, bf:retentionPolicy, then there's no need to
> manage the millions of copies of it currently required in the model in a
> triple store.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Ross,
>>
>> I wonder how you query your MongoDB store? I don't suppose it supports
>> SPARQL?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Kelley,
>> >
>> > I stick by the notion that as long as a system can ingest/export data as
>> > well-formed RDF graphs, how you store it internally makes no difference.
>> > As
>> > I've said before, our biggest product is modeled entirely using RDF, but
>> > we
>> > store the data in a MongoDB document database, because it fits our
>> > actual
>> > needs better than a triple store.
>> >
>> > It is possible, btw, to produce an ordered list for author/editor names
>> > in
>> > RDF, but it's horribly ugly: you can use rdf:Seq
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_seq or rdf:List
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_list.  They each have their pluses
>> > and
>> > minuses: rdf:List is absolutely awful to work with in any serialization
>> > except Turtle (where it's super easy! see:
>> > http://www.w3.org/2007/02/turtle/primer/#L2986), but has the downside of
>> > being semantically open.  That is, you cannot definitively say "these
>> > are
>> > *all* of the authors and there are no more".
>> >
>> > rdf:Seq (which is an rdf:Container) is considered closed (i.e. there is
>> > no
>> > assumption that there would be anything else in the current container
>> > that
>> > appears somewhere else) but, unfortunately has no syntactic sugar like
>> > Collections in Turtle.
>> >
>> > Containers and Collections being such major pain points in RDF, JSON-LD
>> > threw all of it away for a *much* simpler implementation:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#sets-and-lists
>> >
>> > All that said, as long as you can serialize your author lists as one of
>> > these, model it however suits your needs the best for your regular
>> > workflows/needs.
>> >
>> > -Ross.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 6:12 AM Kelley McGrath <[log in to unmask]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Although much of the discussion on storing bibframe data went over my
>> >> head, some things have been niggling at me for a while that maybe are
>> >> related to this thread.
>> >>
>> >> I get that it would be good for us to publish our data as linked data.
>> >> I
>> >> get that it would be good for us to consume linked data. I get that we
>> >> should re-use other people's URIs in our data to save time and reduce
>> >> maintenance. I get that we should match our identifiers to other
>> >> people's
>> >> URIs in order to connect more information.
>> >>
>> >> However, it has not been clear to me that it makes sense for us to
>> >> store
>> >> and maintain our data as linked data. And yet, I don't see any
>> >> alternative
>> >> plan being developed.
>> >>
>> >> This may be sacrilege, but from what I understand there seem to be
>> >> things
>> >> that linked data isn't good at. For example, retaining the order of
>> >> things
>> >> like authors' names or connecting a specific place and publisher
>> >> written on
>> >> the title page or a book. Sometimes when this has been discussed on
>> >> this
>> >> list, I get the impression that we shouldn't want to do those things;
>> >> that
>> >> they're somehow obsolete.
>> >>
>> >> I can't get my head around that. Maybe you don't need those things for
>> >> linking, but I don't think linking is the only thing that we want to do
>> >> with
>> >> our data. For example, it emerged recently, when MPOW changed to a
>> >> discovery
>> >> layer that didn't do such a good job with this initially, that the
>> >> ability
>> >> to generate citations is hugely important to a significant portion of
>> >> our
>> >> patrons. If you want to generate an accurate citation, you need to know
>> >> the
>> >> order of the author's names.
>> >>
>> >> It has been suggested to me that we shouldn't be generating citations,
>> >> but
>> >> rather storing them as strings. However, again I seem to be missing
>> >> something because that doesn't seem very optimal to me. Do you store a
>> >> separate string for every format: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.? What do you
>> >> do
>> >> when a style guide gets updated? It might not be very easy to update
>> >> millions of strings. What if a new citation style is invented and
>> >> becomes
>> >> popular? It just seems to me to be more flexible and powerful to store
>> >> the
>> >> individual pieces of data and generate the citations. On the other
>> >> hand,
>> >> publishing citations as strings might be okay for most use cases.
>> >>
>> >> MARC records are a single unit. If a record has been edited by multiple
>> >> parties, you can't tell who changed what when, which is a challenge for
>> >> trouble-shooting and quality control. Linked data statements are
>> >> atomistic,
>> >> but it sounds to me like it is still hard to say anything much *about*
>> >> the
>> >> statement other than maybe the domain name used by whoever made it. It
>> >> would
>> >> be useful to track more about individual statements, such as when they
>> >> are
>> >> made and whether or not they are currently considered valid (one of the
>> >> problems with bad data in the OCLC master record environment is that
>> >> even if
>> >> you take erroneous information out, all it takes is one batchload to
>> >> put it
>> >> right back in).
>> >>
>> >> As some of you know, I have been working on a project to crowdsource
>> >> the
>> >> parsing of film credits in catalog records (help us out at
>> >> http://olac-annotator.org/ ). One result of this is that we have links
>> >> between transcribed names in records and their authorized form.  It
>> >> occurs
>> >> to me that this might be a useful thing to record proactively. For
>> >> example,
>> >> even in a world of identifiers, we still need to choose one of many
>> >> possible
>> >> versions of a name to display to the user (unless you're going to
>> >> display
>> >> them all at once in some kind of cluster, which is not very
>> >> user-friendly in
>> >> many situations). In library cataloging, traditionally, for people the
>> >> most
>> >> common or the most recent variation is chosen as the preferred one.
>> >> However,
>> >> if the math changes, you have to wait for a person with NACO powers to
>> >> notice this and fix it. This doesn't always happen in a timely fashion.
>> >> In
>> >> his earliest movies, Laurence Fishburne was credited as Larry Fishburne
>> >> so
>> >> this is how his name was established. It then persisted in library
>> >> catalogs
>> >> as Larry Fishburne for long, long after after he made the change (I
>> >> think
>> >> ten years) . If you had data like this, the computer could do the math
>> >> and
>> >> display the most current form.
>> >>
>> >> Name on piece   Year and work
>> >> Larry Fishburne 1984    The Cotton Club
>> >> Larry Fishburne         1985    The Color Purple
>> >> Laurence Fishburne      1993    Searching for Bobby Fischer
>> >> Laurence Fishburne      1999    The Matrix
>> >> Laurence Fishburne      2006    Mission: Impossible III
>> >>
>> >> (if you look at IMDb's Laurence Fishburne page, they do track all this,
>> >> along with the names of the characters he played:
>> >> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000401/ )
>> >>
>> >> With linked data, you can say
>> >>
>> >> Movie1  -- has actor  -- LF123
>> >> Movie1 -- has actor's name credited as  -- "Laurence Fishburne"
>> >> LF123  -- has been credited as -- "Laurence Fishburne"
>> >>
>> >> But you can't get all three of those things to connect up, at least not
>> >> without using blank nodes, which then makes your data not so shareable.
>> >> So
>> >> far as I can see, anytime you want to connect the dots between more
>> >> than two
>> >> pieces of information or say something about a statement, it doesn't
>> >> work so
>> >> well with triples. This might not be such a problem for linking, but I
>> >> think
>> >> there are other things we want to do with our data where we may want
>> >> this
>> >> ability.
>> >>
>> >> What happens if we implement bibframe and we don't store and maintain
>> >> our
>> >> data as bibframe triples? We could just keep generating bibframe from
>> >> MARC
>> >> records, but then we haven't really replaced MARC or gotten more
>> >> flexible,
>> >> structured data than we already have.
>> >>
>> >> Alternatively, ILS vendors could come up with another internal format
>> >> for
>> >> us to store data in. However, I don't know that they have the right
>> >> expertise for this nor any economic incentives. If this happened, we
>> >> would
>> >> also end up with much less portable data. Imagine if bib records were
>> >> like
>> >> item records and every system had its proprietary format and unique
>> >> combination of fields. Anytime you do an ILS migration, there is a lot
>> >> of
>> >> item data that can't be moved to the new system, either because it's
>> >> structured differently or because there is no equivalent field.
>> >>
>> >> This may be completely wrong-headed and I think I'm using the wrong
>> >> vocabulary some places, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case
>> >> someone
>> >> can enlighten me.
>> >>
>> >> Kelley
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

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

August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
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