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  February 2017

BIBFRAME February 2017

Subject:

Re: Conceptual models, was: [BIBFRAME] Failure

From:

"Ryan E. Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:51:26 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (400 lines)

Hi Amber,

I find that viewpoint a bit antithetical to linked data, that is: there 
are levels of trust, but simply not trusting ANY other vocab/ontology 
means LoC should probably just make an update to MODS to serve in some 
lightweight JSON or something. I'm glad companies and organizations are 
pushing BIBFRAME into the community more, though (2.0 introduced some 
much-needed actual RDF conformity).   



-Ryan


On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 22:47:18 +0000, Amber Billey <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Hi Ryan,
>
>My understanding why the BIBFRAME vocabulary is entirely original and
>doesn't reuse classes and properties from other well established 
existing
>vocabularies/ontologies is because it's being managed and maintained by 
the
>Library of Congress (a government agency) -- and they need to have 
complete
>and reliable  control of their data. They cannot completely trust 
existing
>vocabularies/ontologies no matter how stable they are.
>
>With the LD4P project we're working to replace or subclass BF classes 
and
>properties with classes and properties from existing and stable
>vocabularies such as DCterms, Schema, CIDOC-CRM, Web Annotations Model,
>etc.
>
>Maybe we can convince LC to adopt our strategy, but I understand why 
even
>if they don't.
>
>-Amber Billey
>
>Sent via mobile
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:19 PM Ryan E. Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
>
>> Great points, and thanks for the discussion as always, Karen.
>>
>>
>>
>> For some background, we have been using an RDF-based schema/ontology 
for
>>
>> a Hydra-based digital repository for almost 5 years. On the other
>>
>> thread, there was a lot of guessing about what linked data can do, 
and I
>>
>> think I'm in a fortunate position to say what a non-schema.org, RDF-
>>
>> based library schema can pull off.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even without schema.org properties we achieve good SEO (e.g. someone 
can
>>
>> type in a reasonably proximate collection name in Google and we are 
the
>>
>> top 3 results). But as you cogently pointed out elsewhere, simple 
things
>>
>> like adding maps become incredibly complicated, because all the
>>
>> wonderful tools built around the major APIs tend to assume JSON data 
and
>>
>> an entire stack of technologies different than ours. Geospatial 
metadata
>>
>> simply has no RDF options (we are hoping along with DPLA for
>>
>> developments in geoJSON-ld and other schemes), and we are stuck 
waiting
>>
>> for that. The solution in the meantime has been to kludge it so that 
we
>>
>> have basic Leaflet integration. So a relevant question is, who will
>>
>> build this whole new marketplace of RDF-based apps that aren't just
>>
>> parsing or serialization libraries? If we are only using this data 
that
>>
>> has to be kludged just to support existing apps/APIs, there is little
>>
>> value added.
>>
>>
>>
>> What our metadata unit has most crucially learned is that making your
>>
>> own predicates (or properties) is potentially dangerous because now 
you
>>
>> have lost the power of the crowd to improve understanding or
>>
>> implementation of it, or even if the predicate is necessary in the 
first
>>
>> place. Someone on another thread said RDF-based data is instantly 
able
>>
>> to be integrated with one another. In theory, yes, but in practice, 
no.
>>
>> It's true that blind trust of others' schemes is necessary and you 
could
>>
>> merge any RDF graph with another, but we still have to evaluate where 
a
>>
>> data source fits into ours, what their domain/ranges are for 
predicates,
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I look at BIBFRAME, I see an entire ontology built anew. Why 
wasn't
>>
>> a first principle to borrow or at least map to as many Dublin Core,
>>
>> PREMIS, etc. predicates as possible? Is that a goal and a known task,
>>
>> and I shouldn't worry about it? If it doesn't at least map to 
existing
>>
>> predicates used in the linked data world, it will become a niche
>>
>> ontology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our new ontology will have very little BIBFRAME predicates because it
>>
>> doesn't seem to make any sense with its insistence on the
>>
>> Work/Instance/Item framework. Digital objects are just that... 
objects,
>>
>> and we don't think our objects fit into this paradigm. That said, we 
do
>>
>> sometimes have objects that come from our catalog, and if BIBFRAME 
ever
>>
>> comes to our library we would of course figure out a mapping to our
>>
>> ontology, that would be much easier than the current MARC->MODS->our
>>
>> ontology mapping. But that's rather disappointing in the end.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:21:56 -0800, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Simon, interestingly, this person[1] thinks that BIBFRAME is too 
much
>>
>> of
>>
>> >a conceptual model.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >One of the problems that I have is that the actual vocabulary 
doesn't
>>
>> >always match the stated concepts. I had this experience recently 
with
>>
>> >the Zepheira version, bibfra.me [2], that people often call "BF-
lite".
>>
>> >For example, "Agent" class includes the property "audience" from
>>
>> >Resource, but the definition of "audience" talks about the content 
of a
>>
>> >resource. Things like that just jar me and don't seem logical. We 
went
>>
>> >through that with the earliest version of bibframe that didn't seem 
to
>>
>> >put things at the correct bibliographic level. A lot got fixed, it
>>
>> >seems. However, it's hard to judge the model when the execution 
brings
>>
>> >up questions, and when the model is defined in just a few sentences.
>>
>> >(Note: schema.org has many of the same problems, but there's a large
>>
>> >community that discusses them so one has hope that they'll 
eventually
>>
>> be
>>
>> >worked out.)(Also note: FRBR has this same problem with its user 
tasks,
>>
>> >that are covered in one paragraph each, and to me are totally 
vague.)
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Admittedly, FRBRoo is much more rigorous. That said, it needs 
something
>>
>> >like the BF-lite presentation to make it understandable. The best 
thing
>>
>> >about BF-lite is its web site organization and presentation.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Also, shouldn't we be creating standards using methods like are used 
by
>>
>> >W3C and IETF - with open communities, wikis, mailing list archives,
>>
>> open
>>
>> >documents? That doesn't mean that organizations develop a standard 
and
>>
>> >then post it online, it means that the PROCESS needs to be visible 
so
>>
>> >that people can participate, or at least understand the end result.
>>
>> It's
>>
>> >very hard to understand a standard if you haven't seen what was
>>
>> >discussed, what was dismissed, what the thinking was. We're way 
behind
>>
>> >others in our standards process.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >kc
>>
>> >[1]
>>
>> >https://redlibrarian.github.io/article/2017/02/01/library-systems-
>>
>> disaster.html
>>
>> >[2] http://bibfra.me/
>>
>> >
>>
>> >On 2/2/17 12:24 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
>>
>> >> On Feb 2, 2017 7:21 AM, "Gordon Dunsire" <[log in to unmask]
>>
>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     "I do not understand why RDA cataloging examples and
>>
>> implementations
>>
>> >>     have not picked up Bibframe as a prerequisite. They seem like 
not
>>
>> >>     being made for each other, which is confusing and kind of
>>
>> bizarre.":
>>
>> >>     I think the second point is answered earlier in the paragraph:
>>
>> "It
>>
>> >>     is so simple that it even does not follow FRBR ..."
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     There are other reasons why RDA does not regard BIBFRAME as a
>>
>> >>     prequisite:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     It is not stable.____
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     Its functional requirements are unclear.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Quite.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To the extent that BIBFRAME's functional requirements /are/ clear,
>>
>> your
>>
>> >> remarks above are not signs of success. Remember that the goal of 
the
>>
>> >> bibframe effort was set by the LC report on the RDA test, and it's
>>
>> >> purpose was to establish a non MARC based approach for carrying 
RDA
>>
>> >> data. The report did not call for establishing a new conceptual
>>
>> model,
>>
>> >> and this may have been unwise, and contributed to the instability
>>
>> noted.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> A different  starting point would have been to start from the 
basis
>>
>> of
>>
>> >> FRBRoo, which /is/ a rigorously defined FRBR based model, and 
define
>>
>> any
>>
>> >> simplified or extended ontology in alignment with that. Such an
>>
>> approach
>>
>> >> would also consider and make explicit the functions that a less
>>
>> record
>>
>> >> based approach could benefit, and what sort of enabling workflows,
>>
>> >> infrastructure, and architecture might be needed to support those
>>
>> goals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Simon
>>
>> >
>>
>> >--
>>
>> >Karen Coyle
>>
>> >[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>
>> >m: +1-510-435-8234
>>
>> >skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>> 
>=======================================================================
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>

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

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