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  August 2015

BIBFRAME August 2015

Subject:

Re: BIBFRAME Identifier, Role, and Authority Proposals

From:

"Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:49:21 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Regarding authority vs person, at ID we plan to implement an additional uri for authorities that returns just their real-world-object properties. This will take some thought for aliases and undifferentiated names.

Nate

-----------------------------------------
Nate Trail
Network Development & MARC Standards Office
LS/ABA/NDMSO
LA308, Mail Stop 4402
Library of Congress
Washington DC 20540




-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Folsom
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Identifier, Role, and Authority Proposals

I’m very supportive of the authorities proposal’s attempt to decouple authorities from the entities they describe. I hope that we can successfully maintain the semantic consistency in the data. I noticed throughout this thread (and in the VIAF data) authority URIs being used as the objects of properties where instead person, places, etc. URIs should be. For example, (as previously mentioned) VIAF has separate URIs for the person and the authority, but then they go on to make a sameAs assertion between the VIAF *person* and an id.loc.gov *authority*. I hope this is just a mistake, and that they would be open to making the sameAs assertion between the VIAF foaf:Document and the id.loc.gov authority.

For example: https://viaf.org/viaf/36997809/rdf.xml has a URI for the document ("http://viaf.org/viaf/36997809/“) and another for Carl Sagan himself ("http://viaf.org/viaf/36997809”, without the trailing slash). The Person URI has sameAs assertions with both authorities and entities modeled as persons.



Re:Roles, I’m a little confused about semantics of the role proposal, which may be related to Karen’s observation about bf:Instance data and bf:Agent data. Using the example in the proposal:

bf:contributor  [a bf:Contributor ;
	bf:role <some role resource> ;
	bf:agent <some agent resource> ].


I read this to mean some work (not represented in the example) has some bnode bf:Contributor. That bf:Contributor has a role. That bf:Contributor has a related agent. Is the bf:Contributor really more of a Contribution, like a PROV Activity (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/)? If so, the proposal makes semantic sense, and I would just recommend naming bf:Contributor to bf:Contribution or just using PROV activity.

If the bf:Contributor is a bf:Agent then there are some issues. The bnode bf:Contributor (again, if it is a bf:Agent) is the *same as* the <some agent resource>; the <some agent resource> isn’t the *agent of* the bnode bf:Contributor. Also, if the bnode were ever replaced by a URI for the Agent, all other roles the Agent ever performed in other works would automatically be now associated with this work.

If a bf:Contributor is a bf:Agent it would make more sense just to say:

<some work> <some role/relator> <some agent resource> . 

(Note, the <some role/relator> property would have to have the range of an Agent. We would have to careful to not use properties that have domains of a work with a range of authority with bf:Contributors if they are agents.) 

The Agent in turn could be described by an authority:

<some work> <some role/relator> <some agent resource> .

<some agent resource> <bf:identifiedBy> <some authority> .



Re: the Identifiers proposal, Karen has said this before, but we shouldn’t conflate the role of URIs with string identifiers. When I read the Authorities proposal, I interpret bf:identifiedBy as having the semantics:

<some thing> <is identified through an authority> <some authority resource> .

**But** the identifier proposal says the bf:identifiedBy property is for an identifier string. That’s very different. I would recommend we be able to say the following through different properties:

<some bf:Resource> <is described by an authority> <some authority resource> .
<some authority resource> <is identified by an identifier> <some string identifier> .


Thank you for your consideration,
Steven

————
Steven Folsom
Metadata Strategist and Standards Advocate Cornell University Library







On 8/25/15, 5:58 PM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum on behalf of Thomas Berger" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Am 25.08.2015 um 19:58 schrieb Karen Coyle:
>
>>> bf:contributor [
>>>    a bf:Contributor ;
>>>    bf:role<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ill>  ;
>>>    bf:role<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut>  ;
>>>    bf:agent<http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234>  ;
>>>    bf:agent<http://d-nb.info/gnd/9876>  ].
>>>
>>> (MARC semantics: two different roles for one bibliographic identity 
>>> accounted for in different authority files)
>> 
>> Wouldn't it be preferable that any equivalence between agent 
>> identifie
>rs
>> be declared outside of the instance data for a bibliographic resource?
>> Logically, the information that they are equivalent is not related to
>a
>> particular bibliographic resource, but is a fact related to the 
>> agents themselves. It should hold true for all instances.
>
>Well, I wouldn't expect that one cataloging agency would tie its 
>activities to more than one authority control environment. And if, it 
>probably would encapsulate that into some local construction detailing 
>on the exact findings of the agency:
>
>bf:contributor [
>   a bf:Contributor ;
>   bf:agent<http://example.com/authorities/xyz> ]
>
><http://example.com/authorities/xyz> [
>  a schema:Person ;
>  a bf:Agent ;
>  rdfs:label "John Doe (1900-1983)" ;
>  skos:exactMatch <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234> ;
>  schema:sameAs <http://d-nb.info/gnd/9876> ;
>  owl:differentFrom <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/abc>
> ].
>
>But for some bibliographic aggregator who does not want to presuppose 
>the authority control ecosystem potential consumers of its data would 
>prefer I can imagine descriptions where alternative(!) identifications 
>for the bf:contributor are supplied. I mean, there certainly must have 
>been a use case when MARC's 7XX $0 was introduced as repeatable?
>
>I'd consider this "instancial" evidence of possible identity, declaring 
>equivalence in the context of a bf:Agent would be a stronger statement.
>
>BTW: Different authority control systems use rather different 
>vocabularies to establish cross border identification of their 
>resources (there seems to be a general tendency to avoid owl:sameAs, 
>though). Given the fact that even for simple agents like persons the 
>entities not always are in 1:1 correspondance (e.g. LCAuth focussing on 
>bibliographic identities, and ULAN very much on real persons), could or 
>should there be a bf:identicalTo property declaring equivalence in a 
>Bibframe sense? Or would identity rather be something to be defined by 
>the application, e.g. data created in the context of a manuscript and 
>letters application would probably not distinguish between Ruth Rendell 
>and Barbara Vine and thus would use "regular"
>authority control with a deviant notion of equivalence ;)
>
>
>> (This brings up the question of usage of VIAF identifiers in the 
>> place of specific authority control identifiers, but that's another 
>> topic.)
>
>Maybe not at all. Certainly VIAF is lacking some features we are 
>accustomed to find in more traditional authority control systems, but 
>if some people successfully start to use VIAF in lieu of ordinary 
>authority control, then my expectation on Bibframe would be that VIAF 
>based authority control should not work differently from ordinary ones. 
>So "VIAF" could serve as kind of litmus test for Bibframe concepts ans 
>properties - if they rely on "traditional"
>features not present in VIAF they are lacking universality (in the 
>universe Bibframe is concerned with) and should be considered optional 
>at most.
>
>viele Gruesse
>Thomas Berger
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
>iJwEAQECAAYFAlXc5QMACgkQYhMlmJ6W47NXIQP+OQoHIL6caieYMysDVvGrilf5
>jHAo//n7tbH2T16iR5aoy8C4WO8rtJFgFvLPfJH22P5b2QhAA3oeHctqAMi/P8gk
>5X48gAwqYrQffDw6glSD+XL6a59p0JIUQFWW4lFpEq8Y+dLp3Jz9Kq4VCkDMDsul
>Jht1oMxqC+v+azrB9Hs=
>=Kcxq
>-----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

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