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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  August 2015

BIBFRAME August 2015

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME Identifier, Role, and Authority Proposals

From:

Thomas Berger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:20:52 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

Am 27.08.2015 um 04:12 schrieb Karen Coyle:

> I, too, am puzzled about the semantics of this. To me it says:
>
> <some resource> <has a contributor> x
> x is a Contributor
> x has role <role>
> x has agent <agent>
>
> x obviously doesn't *have* an agent in the way that it has a role --

STOP. The only thing obvious is that exactly this is stated. So
we have to adapt our understanding of the nature of x to fit
our understanding to the statement. The obstacle seems to be
the clash between the meaning of bf:Contributor and our understanding
of "contributor" and it was already proposed to change the label
of the class to more properly reflect whats really going on in
the node.


> <agent> is the identifier for x. But I don't see how x can *be* both x
> AND some agent. In this example "x" represents the contributor, and
> <agent> also represents the contributor. Or, if you look at it in terms

two meanings of "contributor" in one sentence. Too bad.


> of what entity is being described, it comes down to "x has agent <x>"
> because they are talking about the same thing. (This seems to call for
> "owl:sameAs".)
>
> I think this is one of the tricky aspects of using blank nodes. It isn't
> that they represent a blank -- they represent a specific thing that, at
> that moment in time, has no name. But it's still a thing. It's not, as
> it has been called here, a data structure. So the bnode x is a real

Reading the RDF primer it seems to be perfectly legal to model any
"compound data structure" this way. We only have to realize what the
"thing" is which is described by that graph.

We want to give a precise description of the relation between our
resource and the agent (leaving out for now that the identifier
proposal might tend to introduce another intermediate node separating
the agent from that what we can tell about him) and therefore we
record the role (and may annotate this or give references in cases
where the identification is tricky or non obvious). If we read that
backwards we are describing the contribution of the agent with
respect to the given resource. So viewing the "x" from above as
of class bf:Contribution (please for one moment don't confuse that
with an actual article in a proceedings volume) makes at least as
much sense as naming it a bf:Contributor.

We could go a step further and express that "x" is an area where
/cataloguers/ add value by identifying agents and their roles alike.
Then maybe a good class name for "x" would be bf:RoleDescription
(kind of a "document"?) or bf:RoleIdentification (more like fixing
the outcome of an "action"?).

There is an asymmetry: So much can be told about the agent and
on the other hand specifying the role is just some tiny statement.
So especially humans do want to know that there is a relation to
Shakespeare first (and which Shakespeare) before they want to
be bothered by noticing the nature of the relation. So having
a property named bf:contributor or bf:hasContributor is accommodating
this kind of human zigzag behavior. But we wouldn't go that far
as providing our Shakespeare graph with some impressing list of
roles which back-link to our resource (I have outlined exactly
that way of modeling in authority records when it comes to
identifiers and schemes).

So if a RoleDescription implicitly has a link to a resource like in
x [ a bf:RoleDescription;
   hasRole xyz:writerOfForweord ;
   appliesToAgent ... ;
   withRespectToResource <someResource>].

how do we streamline that when embedding it into a description of
our <someResource> (leaving out the then implicit
withRespcectToResource property or rather emplying an inverse
property for that)? Naming properties with "has..." usually
stress the next hop, can we think of a property name which
indicate that we'll eventually arrive at an agent?

Would use of genitives in property names be legitimate like in

<some resource>
  <agent's role> / <agent's contribution> [
  a bf:RoleDescription / bf:RoleIdentification / bf:Contribution ;
  ... ].

Mot only PROV-O but also FRBRoo switches from a static view
(describing results of actions manifest somewhere) to a
dynamic view (describing the relevant actions themselves with
consequences as to where dates and places are to be recorded).
Should we altogether abandon the perspective that an agent has
illustrated a resource (like an frbr:expression - way to
immaterial to be pencilled on if you start to think of it)
in favor of a view of /events/ performed by our agents
which (in a possibly complex chain of further events not detailed
in library descriptions) have some recognizable outcome in
the entities we describe?

 %--

Of course there is an easy technical way to enforce sanity in
the class Names by just stating the obvious and not trying any
further conceptualization:

<some resource> bf:hasAgentWithRole [
   a bf:AgentWithRole ;
   has role <role>
   has agent <agent> ].


viele Gruesse
Thomas Berger

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

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