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  June 2016

BIBFRAME June 2016

Subject:

Re: FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value

From:

Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:09:48 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (94 lines)

> 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 donít 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

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

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