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

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sat, 16 May 2015 10:19:13 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

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

Am 16.05.2015 um 00:36 schrieb Karen Coyle:

>>> whatever property you have that takes a literal for the title (bf:title,
>>> bf:instanceTitle, bf:keyTitle... etc.) can be used in any triple s, bf:x, o.
 S
>> o
>>> although you may define bf:title to have a range of, say, bf:Title, some
>>> property has to be the property for the literal string of that title. And th
at
>>> property can be used in any triple s, bf:x, o. So you cannot prevent people
>>> (using RDF) from saying
>>>
>>>      <http://bibframe.example.com/workX>   bf:x   “Lord of the Flies”  .
>> which, assuming bf:x would be set up as having a domain of bf:Title, would
>> by inference turn <http://bibframe.example.com/workX> an instance of bf:Title
 .

> Thomas, thanks. I obviously wasn't thinking about inferencing nor assuming tha
t
> bf:x would have a domain of bf:Title. I haven't yet seen much to indicate that
> inferencing will be a big (or even small) part of library or bibliographic dat
a.
> I note that, at least in the examples I have seen, BIBFRAME explicitly states
> rdf:type on subjects rather than relying on inferencing. (This seems to be a
> common practice in RDF applications.) The main practical use case I see for
> domains is in searching ("do this search on every property of class x").
> 
> My thinking was that bf:x would have a general domain like rdfs:Resource, whic
h
> would allow it to be used without incurring a specific inference on the subjec
t.
> This makes it similar to rdfs:label, but a label that would only apply to
> titles, thus it would be searchable specifically as a title. Whether or not th
is
> is practical depends on a lot of factors.

well, the class of title-bearing resources would be the union of bf:Work and
bf:Item?

Your "solution" (which I still consider a solution without quotes) gave me the
insight that it might be more preferable to let users "violate" class
distinctions than to have properties with several value types (or variantly
named properties for the essentially same relation depending on the data type).

In German, "title" is an elaborate synonym for "book" indicating that the
speaker is educated enough to be aware of the fact that there are many
copies... And for the title page(s). And of course for our(?) title in the
sense of denomination.
For the "data" world this means to me that BF has to be conceptually flexible
enough to map from/to the flattest descriptions imagineable (unqualified DC or
even less like scanned tables of contents) to data born in FRBR inspired
environments. So for some users "title" is and will ever be a "direct"
attribute of their resources, for others something transcribed from a
certain physical part of the resource (or they even make manifest the
bf:Instance or bf:Item involved), and others assign something as the result of
intellectual analysis of the content of the resource (archivists) or part of
it (librarians)

So there /will/ be data not respecting the distinction between the classes
bf:Work, bf:Instance and bf:Item. And even more data not making use of
(instances of) the bf:Title class coined for modeling complex situations.
Looking at this hypothetical data one will not be able to "correct" that
(two "titles" given, could one be the spine title? or the original title
for the work? or a parallel title?), the information needed is simply
not there at all.

Having properties with quite specific domains will not prevent users from
"mis-using" that in the sense that they won't explicitly create all the
intermediate resources in their data to cohere to some concept of "strict
classing". But by domain considerations you can rather conclude that some
given resource in the data set has attributes turning it into a bf:Work
and bf:Title (and bf:Instance) at the same time: Depending on /your/
processing needs this might not matter at all or serve you as a warning
flag. In contrast to having distinctly named properties or giving most
properties the most general domains one cone think of I see some gain
in the approach.

Currently

<http://bibframe.example.com/workX> a bf:Work;
   bf:workTitle [a bf:Title;
                 bf:titleValue  “Lord of the Flies”].


is the more elaborate version of the "dumb" statement

<http://bibframe.example.com/workX> bf:title “Lord of the Flies”.

but what if the domain of bf:title would be defined as bf:Title
and therefore the existence of a bf:Title resource is implied
(and in this instance not distinguished from
<http://bibframe.example.com/workX>, whose bf:Work- or bf:Instance-ness might
not have been
established yet)? Furthermore, since there are not many properties
"connecting to" bf:Titles one (sometimes) could even deduce that
<http://bibframe.example.com/workX> is an instance of one of the
title-bearing BF resources...

viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger


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

iJwEAQECAAYFAlVW/X8ACgkQYhMlmJ6W47MaggP+NhD4nshDAsPxYYo0EfqHVbXw
HGtUtR0frN44ucO7mwCZyXNeliqt5wxTP1T6eJIdNM5j/1+vWq+RAagys2mt5SGh
IxlNOtb6TuwF5xYdW/hqUSxTrbJpsbxpYxJafQfK0hezcB+hhsEeyBPm9y/AJesp
wIrHqbiUOM2xm0w2HE0=
=6THy
-----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