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  May 2015

BIBFRAME May 2015

Subject:

Re: RDF dual properties... can be a cataloging question

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 15 May 2015 17:47:50 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 15.05.2015 um 16:32 schrieb Robert Sanderson:
> I think it's easier to see the benefits when you take away the title
> resource and are left with just a string.
> 
> Without the resource:
> 
> * You can't have parts of titles, e.g. no subtitle as it's just a single
> string ; or you you can have parts, but can't have multiple titles.
>    -- e.g. you could have work title X ; subtitle Y but not work title X,X2
> ; subtitle Y as you don't know whether Y goes with X or X2
>       And I think it's pretty clear that both need to be supported.
> 
> And that by itself makes a resource required. However ...
> 
> * You can't have relationships between titles (there's nothing to relate
> to), e.g. that one title is a variant of another
> * You need to create new properties for every type of title, rather than
> using classes and a consistent relationship from work to title
> * You can't have other properties of titles, such as status [not that I
> agree with this particular example property, but have heard it stated as a
> requirement]
> * You can't have relationships to other resources, such as the transcriber
> [ditto]
> 
> So if all we ever need is one or more equally preferred strings as the
> title, and there are no parts, properties or relationships, then we should
> just use dc:title with a string.  Otherwise, we need to use a resource.

As Karen Coyle almost initially pointed out, besides from refering to real
world entities there are other functions in need of a subgraph and these
could be realized as (anonymous) entities in RDF:

* aspects: the "title" actually can be decomposed into several parts, like
  title proper plus subtitle.

* proper decomposition: The title consists of several components of equal
  right, like parallel titles. Or embedded into the title is a phrase
  from a different language which should be encoded properly.

Since RDF is never about order noting the "proper" order of the equal
components or constructing relations between components to the corresponding
"parts" of the string as a whole will be very messy.

* "flavors": several mutually exclusive properties could be combined into
  one (like "preferred title" or "uniform title": These actually stem from
  different cataloging codes. So being agnostic of the cataloging code
  actually might demand that BF has general properties which have to be
  differentiated by code-specific (non bf:?) attributes, i.e. providing
  the string with qualifying attributes, thus turning it into something
  complex, naturally a subgraph

* Annotations, IMHO in several flavors:

** Someone supplies a translation of the value (as a string)

** Someone wants to state that the title statement was transcribed from
   a different place as could be expected, so in a sense it could be
   a "source of information" subproperty of the title element or
   an annotation to the statement as a whole.

** Someone wants to state that the title contains amendments like
   bracketed? expansions of abbreviations.


* Relations:

** some title statements are variants of each others (e.g. when in the
   same language), others (like cataloguer-constructed CCTs or parallel
   titles) are not. Here probably not the RDF assertions as such are in
   correspondence but only their objects / property values

** Or even: (Part of) the title is a personal name, work title, place name
   which could deserve separate linking

* Generally in cataloguing *any* statement made could become subject to
  a subsequent note giving a source for that information stated, or
  documenting peculiarities of the description process. Maybe on increased
  use of linked data someone even wants to comment on those comments...

* additionally we might want to note provenance or other administrative
  data for any statement we ingest. I'd prefer quads for this but
  for transport purposes or further aggregation I fear this also has
  to be expressible differently.


Although there are quads and reification as technical vehicles I think the
bulk load of modeling these peculiarities will always consist of creating
entities. AND the bulk of data will never encounter these peculiarities
at all. Therefore the design of BF probably should stop at a certain
degree of detailedness.

IMHO the most important issue at hand is that of adhoc decomosition, as
Rob stated

> * You can't have parts of titles, e.g. no subtitle as it's just a single
> string ; or you you can have parts, but can't have multiple titles.
>    -- e.g. you could have work title X ; subtitle Y but not work title X,X2
> ; subtitle Y as you don't know whether Y goes with X or X2


so A makes a statement
 <workA> bf:title "me : and you".
B performs a more detailled analysis
 <workA> bf:title [xy:titleProper "me"; xy:subTitle "and you"].

When I'm going to aggregate this now, how can I detect these two
bf:title's being variants of each other and discard/ignore one of them
at my discretion? Even apart from the string/resource issue both are
anonymous and therefore by definition not relatable to each other...

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iJwEAQECAAYFAlVWFSUACgkQYhMlmJ6W47Nl6wP8DAsH/4QR7DETmG2QYq8JVVSy
4BB5Cg33ZyftAkgtMeL0c1wua4UeQ1NvjmH6j4G8HH3Hf+X6EgM5oxhTNxVTepYh
PxEAwXyNhCjPHpthUCkQurPQVXx/i0pR3O0ZZ/lOnUUNrGf+Au+2PX9sSJ0sOflw
/thGNSXu7XunXQ+Onr4=
=GWBK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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