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  November 2015

BIBFRAME November 2015

Subject:

Re: Properties of Item proposal

From:

"Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:13:11 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (34 lines)

Karen - The discussion seemed to be going off in several directions and I ran out of time and energy to argue with what seem to be mostly academic points that probably don't have a lot of relevance to the BIBFRAME 2.0 vocabulary.   

But I don't agree with the suggestion that the distinction between object and datatype properties is not relevant to BIBFRAME; conceptually, the distinction is fundamental to BIBFRAME.

I say "conceptually" because for 2.0, our current thinking is that very few properties will be constrained by formal ranges and none will be declared as OWL datatype or object properties. However, for  documentation and guideline purposes each property will informally be considered one or the other, and each will have an "expected value";  if you receive a triple with an "un"expected value, you decide what to do with it.  

For almost every property, the choice between datatype and object property is fairly straightforward: If the value almost certainly will never be a resource - for example, number of pages in a book (e.g., 234 pages) - it will be a datatype property, otherwise it will be an object property.  

Now, for a property like "electronicLocator", whose value is likely to be an HTTP URL (And electronicLocator is probably the only such BIBFRAME property), you can treat it however you like.  

That's pretty much a summary of our current thinking.

Ray



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:18 AM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum; Denenberg, Ray
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Properties of Item proposal
> 
> Ray, we had a lively back-and-forth conversation going on that has suddenly
> stopped, and I'm wondering what your thinking is at this point.
> I'm sure that Tom didn't intend to shut the conversation down, and much of
> what he says echoes what we were discussing prior to his reply.
> 
> Where do we go from here? Is there a resolution? Agreement? Further
> discussion?
> 
> Thanks,
> kc
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password