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: Back to provenance

From:

"Svensson, Lars" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 19 May 2015 10:29:53 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Tim,

Monday, May 18, 2015 10:43 PM, Tim Thompson wrote:

> Now that BIBFRAME production projects are on the horizon, it seems like a
> good time to revisit the issue of provenance and how to track it. I started
> reading a thread on the topic from a few years ago, but was wondering what
> new insights or best practices had emerged since then. The current
> marc2bibframe transformation outputs a single bf:Annotation with
> provenance/revision information, linked only to the bf:Work entity, probably
> only for demonstration purposes, or to keep the results more (human)
> readable:
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/XYm1431979154/9057891annotation21> a
> bf:Annotation ;
>     bf:annotates <http://bibframe.org/resources/XYm1431979154/9057891> ;
>     bf:changeDate "2015-05-07T16:06" ;
>     bf:derivedFrom
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/XYm1431979154/9057891.marcxml.xml> ;
>     bf:descriptionConventions
> <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/descriptionConventions/isbd>,
>         <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/descriptionConventions/rda> ;
>     bf:descriptionLanguage <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/languages/eng> ;
>     bf:descriptionSource <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/organizations/njp> ;
>     bf:generationProcess "DLC transform-tool:2015-01-16-T11:00:00" .

I have a problem with the provenance statement above. In my opinion this kind of provenance only makes sense when the data is stored in the BIBFRAME format. Depending on what system you envision to store your data, that might or might not be true. 

In many cases systems use an internal data format (IDF) and when needed the data is converted to the requested exchange format, be it MARC 21, MARCXML, BIBFRAME, some-other-kind-of-RDF-e.g.-RDA, ... In that case I'd have a provenance chain 

<http://example.org/bibframe/123456> bf:derivedFrom <http://example.org/internal/123456> .
<http://example.org/internal/123456> bf:derivedFrom <http://example.org/marcxml/123456> .

Would it in your opinion make sense to publish the complete provenance chain?

(As an aside, to me the same discussion applies to the new MARC 21 field 884 [1])

> At production scale, however, it seems the kind of provenance data we record
> should be more robust and systematic. So, what should be the scale and focus
> of our provenance data be? Named graphs? Individual triples?

That depends on how your data is handled. You always give provenance for a graph. That graph might be a single triple, or the complete graphiphication of a record. Since you always need a handle for the provenance (what resource does the provenance apply to), you could do that by creating a named graph or if it's only for a single triple you could do it with (ugly) reification. Both methods have their pros and cons.

> Do we need to
> repeat the same provenance data for every statement in a description set (e.g.,
> bf:descriptionLanguage, bf:descriptionSource), given that some statements are
> more "trivial" than others? What's the most appropriate structure/vocabulary
> for making assertions about provenance? It seems that Annotations might not
> be the most appropriate, for example (the Open Annotation spec stresses the
> importance of provenance for Annotations themselves[1]). Is PROVO-O[2] a
> good fit, or do we need something more domain specific?

We shouldn't reinvent the wheel. I'd say that PROV is the way to go.

Best,

Lars

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