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  January 2016

BIBFRAME January 2016

Subject:

Re: The Future of Linked Data in Libraries: Assessing BIBFRAME Against Best Practices

From:

Martynas Jusevičius <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:08:10 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

Hey James,

again, why should events even be in scope of the bibliographical
domain? Secondly, MARC is not part of the Linked Data picture.

In general, I think the answer can be only as specific as: "it
depends". Mostly on usage.

If you know that a book is about "United States--History--Civil War,
1861-1865", then the only thing you can state in RDF with certainty
is:

  _:book dct:subject [ dct:title "United States--History--Civil War,
1861-1865" ] .

In other words, this book is about something with this title. I've
used blank nodes and Dublin Core properties here, but they could also
be URIs and properties from a different vocabulary.

Now maybe someone else has minted a URI for your subject concept, e.g.
DBPedia. Then you can state instead:

  _:book dct:subject <http://dbpedia.org/resource/American_Civil_War> .

If you dereference DBPedia's URI, you will find RDF types such as
dbo:Event. At this point your book is explicitly about the US Civil
War, in a distributed Linked Data context.

Notice that no BIBFRAME specific properties or classes were necessary
to state that fact.

P.S. URI itself is not "the thing", it only *identifies* "the thing".


Martynas

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:58 PM, James Weinheimer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 1/23/2016 2:24 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>
>> I encourage participants of this list to watch the following
>> presentation by Robert Sanderson before diving into philosophical
>> discussions about events in spacetime:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-U-Qd37WgE
>
>
> Thanks for that. Very interesting.
>
> The discussion about reuse is at: https://youtu.be/2-U-Qd37WgE?t=31m26s, and
> I agree that if you want developers to include your information (which is
> the idea of linked data), it is necessary to reuse code whenever possible.
> Otherwise, you are creating a huge additional hurdle for the developers and
> many will choose not to include your information in any tools they create.
>
> Of course, the problem with using other codes is that you end up stuck in
> certain ways if they define things differently than you do. So, that is why
> in my previous message I gave the definitions of "event" as used in other
> implementations. None of them use anything that is similar to any library
> usage. Therefore, if we are to make something that will be useful and valid
> in an "events" semantic system created by somebody else, we have to decide
> how to index our information to match others' ideas of events.
>
> If an event is seen only as a meeting of people, then in addition to the
> 111s, there will also be many, but far from all, 110s (e.g. 110     2_ |a
> Air Traffic Control Association. |b Annual Meeting |n (22nd : |d 1977 : |c
> Las Vegas, Nev.)) and even many 151/110 jurisdictional names (e.g. 110
> 10 |a United States. |b Congress |n (101st : |d 1989-1990))
>
> If an event is supposed to cover other "things that happen" caused by humans
> such as wars and battles or events caused by non-humans, the new index will
> need to include some, but not all, 150s (150 __ |a Hurricane Katrina, 2005)
> and 151s (151     __ |a United States |x History |y Civil War, 1861-1865).
>
> With subjects, there is the additional complexity that there are
> subdivisions, e.g. the subject "United States--History--Civil War,
> 1861-1865--Bibliography". Would this still be considered an event?
>
> If not, there is the URI for this subject, which includes the entire string.
> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2007100437.html. Would this entire
> URI still be considered an event? If not, how would it work vis-a-vis the
> URI for "United States--History--Civil War, 1861-1865"?
>
> Many others view events as individual performances as for instance, when
> someone wants to buy or sell tickets to a musical concert. Libraries don't
> code to this level and you need to look at the entire record for individual
> performance information.
>
> No matter what, it sounds like adding "event" would mean a major change for
> our current data.
>
> James Weinheimer [log in to unmask]
> First Thus http://blog.jweinheimer.net
> First Thus Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FirstThus
> Personal Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/james.weinheimer.35
> Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JamesWeinheimer
> Cooperative Cataloging Rules
> http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
> Cataloging Matters Podcasts
> http://blog.jweinheimer.net/cataloging-matters-podcasts
> The Library Herald http://libnews.jweinheimer.net/
>
> [delay +30 days]

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