50 years of software engineering says that checking inputs early, often and thoroughly is the way to maintain quality (meta)data within systems.

cheers
stuart

--
I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
https://www.facebook.com/VUWLibrary / https://www.facebook.com/TKMPC

________________________________________
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 1:12:59 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value

Consumers of BIBFRAME data either need to trust their sources and/or go to some expense to cleanse it.

On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:10 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> Error-checks, typos, bugs, and malicious data in RDF aren't handled the same way they are in the
>> object-oriented or XSD or RDBMS paradigms.
>
> And where does the BIBFRAME project keep it's documentation / notes on error-checks, typos, bugs, and malicious data?
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> --
> I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
> https://www.facebook.com/VUWLibrary / https://www.facebook.com/TKMPC
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jeff Young <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 12:55:18 p.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>
> Let's assume the new terms *are* defined in the declared namespace. The problem is that your software only understands terms defined in an earlier version, which is identified by a different URI that includes a version number.
>
> The namespace URI should resolve to a description of the vocabulary that informs you of the latest version URI (if your software checks it). That's a clue that the vocabulary has evolved.
>
> Error-checks, typos, bugs, and malicious data in RDF aren't handled the same way they are in the object-oriented or XSD or RDBMS paradigms.
>
>
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 8:33 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Carrying triples that are undefined in their declared namespace (we'll call in (d)) effectively eliminates the usefulness of namespaces and OWL to error-check and stop the transmission of typos, bugs and malicious data.
>>
>> Or are we doing that at some other level?
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> --
>> I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
>> https://www.facebook.com/VUWLibrary / https://www.facebook.com/TKMPC
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 12:21:11 p.m.
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>
>> I think it's c) except that the unknown statements don't necessarily need to be "dropped". They only need to be "carried" until such time as the software catches up.
>>
>> The idea of "linked records" is odd. "Linked things" is more like it. The difference is that deployed systems may not understand certain statements (datatypeproperty or objectproperty) that detail those things.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Sent using OWA for iPad
>> ________________________________
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:11:39 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>
>> Take the example I mentioned, a library consortia. If new predicates are added to the namespace and those predicates are shared by one consortia member before other consortia members have updated themselves. Two things can then happen either:
>>
>> (a) sharing errors out / fails
>> (b) the importing library has to update its definition of the entire BIBFRAME vocabulary
>> (c) predicates are dropped
>>
>> Going with (a) breaks the functioning of the consortia.
>>
>> Going with (b) puts us in the situation where any import can force an BIBFRAME compliant system to completely rebuild itself around a new definition of BIBFRAME which could take an arbitrary length of time, which is not really something we want except during scheduled outages. Caveats around 'minor changes' don't work, because that's exactly the stuff on which the halting problem is built. Note also that in my original post I used the expression "in the general case".
>>
>> Going with (c) puts us in the situation were we end up with potentially significant differences in the data across the consortia. If the predicates are used in bibliographic control or linking, those differences could cascade across linked records.
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> --
>> I have a new phone number: 04 463 5692
>> https://www.facebook.com/VUWLibrary / https://www.facebook.com/TKMPC
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Simon Spero <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:08:29 a.m.
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 2016 4:40 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t think this is true. A vocabulary should publish versions at new URIs but the namespace can remain constant.
>>
>> Stronger than that - The latest version of an ontology can be published at a fixed IRI, as long as each version has a unique version IRI.
>>
>> In fact there is no necessary relationship between an ontology, any names mentioned in that ontology, and any URLs that can be used to retrieve that document.
>>
>> There are some recommendations as to how ontology IRIs, ontology version IRIs, and URLs should behave for ontology version series, but these are advisory, and behavior is under constrained.
>>
>> The only time that new names are needed is if the semantics of the previous name is changed. *Cough* skos:broader.
>>
>> Simon