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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  October 2017

BIBFRAME October 2017

Subject:

Re: Resource relationships

From:

Osma Suominen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:03:21 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (254 lines)

Hi Karen, all,

Very good points! Indeed repeating all RDA elements in BIBFRAME seems a
bit redundant, and using RDA classes/properties directly in BIBFRAME
wouldn't seem like an extension. But there's a difference between the
vocabularies you mention (e.g. MADS/RDF) and using RDA elements, since
while the former has been built in to BIBFRAME to some extent (LOC
wisely decided not to reinvent everything), the latter is completely
unspecified since the RDA model is, when you get to details, quite
different from BIBFRAME.


Here are some thoughts on why using the RDA-in-RDF vocabulary is a bit
difficult currently, and why BIBFRAME-with-RDA might be a better choice
for some scenarios:

While RDA-in-RDF is a full RDF model, it's not really published as such.
The RDA registry is structured as a set of element sets (classes,
properties and values). This is not what is generally expected from a
data model (ontology). It's very difficult to understand the model based
on what's available from the RDA registry, as it's just a set of
disconnected lists of elements. There are a few examples [1] but they
are not really explained. There are also R-balls available [2], but they
are not explained either. Those are about the only examples there are
since, to my knowledge, almost nobody has published RDA-in-RDF data (two
counterexamples are mentioned on the RDA registry site [3]). While the
BIBFRAME documentation could be improved a lot, it does a much better
job of explaining the model and how to apply it in practice than the RDA
registry site.

The "language-agnostic", opaque naming of RDA elements doesn't really
help. Quick, what does rdam:P30088 stand for? What about this triple:
"ex:E1 rdae:P20001 rdaco:1020"? I know this has been debated to death
before within the RDA community, but I think that a data model that
doesn't use any human-understandable mnemonics is doomed to fail. A
triple where neither the subject, property nor object is immediately
recognized by a human being is pretty difficult to work with. This is
like catalogers talking in MARC field codes, just much worse, since
there are many more elements in RDA, they are not generally visible in
any UIs (instead RDA toolkit numbering is often used), and the
identifiers intentionally have very little structure - MARC codes at
least tend to follow some patterns such as x00 for people.

To my knowledge, there is just one generally available tool that can
work with RDA-in-RDF: RIMMF. I've tried it (in a very nice Kiviathon
workshop!) and it does a fairly good job of converting legacy MARC
records to the RDA model, and also gives a rather intuitive display of
the model (though personally I'd structure the UI a bit differently,
perhaps using nested forms instead of overlapping windows). But it's not
open source so its inner workings (including the conversion specs)
cannot be inspected nor built upon. It's clearly a prototype and anyone
intending to do real cataloging in pure RDA (not the MARC flavor) has to
implement similar functionality from scratch. And since very few
institutions currently have real RDA data that would actually follow the
WEMI model, bootstrapping the ecosystem of RDA-in-RDF data is pretty
difficult.

I don't mean to criticize RDA in general (although it surely could be).
I think it's just obvious that not much resources have been invested in
the RDA-in-RDF model, the main focus is elsewhere. The consequence is
that the RDA-in-RDF model is unlikely to ever be applied widely. Some of
the properties (especially the unconstrained ones) are used in a few
places, but not the full model. I think we were the first, or at least
one of the first, to apply the RDA-in-RDF constrained properties for
corporate names when publishing our corporate names dataset [4] - and
the RDA agent model is a lot simpler than the WEMI-based bibliographic
model.

In contrast, starting with the current BIBFRAME model, which at least
has been properly specified as a data model and has several tools
available, and then adding RDA elements as necessary for the finer
details, makes a lot of sense. One can convert existing MARC records to
BIBFRAME using marc2bibframe2 (or one of the other conversion tools that
exist or are being built, like bib2lod or the Casalini Libri products)
and then expand the model, cherry-picking elements from RDA as
necessary. But ideally there would be some guidance available on how to
do this, with examples from actual data sets that have been expressed
using this hybrid model. Maybe this would be a task for the larger
BIBFRAME community?

-Osma


[1] http://www.rdaregistry.info/Examples/

[2] http://rballs.info/

[3] http://www.rdaregistry.info/rgDatasets/

[4] http://finto.fi/cn/

Karen Coyle kirjoitti 29.10.2017 klo 00:31:
> On 10/25/17 12:23 PM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
>> This is interesting work but it doesn't meet my goals. I want to see
>> full support of RDA built into BIBFRAME, not as extensions.
>
> I suspect that "full support of RDA" could only be an implementation of
> RDA in RDF, which is the vocabulary integrated into the RDA Toolkit. It
> seems redundant to repeat all of that in BIBFRAME since it already
> exists. (I have no idea why work has been done on BIBFRAME and not
> RDA... that's beyond my ken.)
>
> Using elements from another vocabulary isn't what I would consider to be
> an extension, and BIBFRAME already uses a good handful of vocabularies
> including rdf, rdfs, madsrdf:
>
> @prefix bf: <http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/> .
> @prefix bflc: <http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bflc/> .
> @prefix madsrdf: <http://www.loc.gov/mads/rdf/v1#> .
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .
> @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
> @prefix zs: <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/search-ws/sruResponse> .
>
> I think, though, that your question mainly speaks to "why BIBFRAME and
> not RDA?"
>
> kc
>
> I don't
>> want to get "pretty far" toward expression of relationship
>> designators, I want full, transparent and easy expression of the full
>> set of designators. Trying to infer relationships from higher level
>> designators and genre codes is fraught when a work has multiple
>> relationships.
>>
>> Class proliferation is an unavoidable fact of BIBFRAME, given the
>> design decision to avoid proliferation of properties. The
>> bibliographic world is complex and we need either properties or
>> classes to express the intellectual distinctions we make in our
>> cataloging code. If we are not going to use properties, then let it
>> be classes.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Bibliographic Framework Transition
>> Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Steven Michael Folsom Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 10:55 AM To:
>> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Resource
>> relationships
>>
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>> Absolutely; I think we’re describing the same observations. Select
>> reuse of RDAU with the understanding that (as you said), the “same
>> semantics may be inferred from the triple rather than being encoded
>> in the property” was one of our goals.
>>
>> This document describes our thinking from almost a year ago now,
>> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/LD4P/bibliotek-o?preview=/79795231/83237330/bibliotek-o_pattern_relations_201612.pdf.
>>
>> It definitely involves using deeper parts of the RDA property
>> hierarchies. Quoting from the doc:
>>
>> “In the case of derivative and equivalence relationships this paper
>> recommends the use of the unconstrained RDA properties, where RDA
>> provides for a set of more granular subproperties. However, we
>> recommend bf:references/bf:referencedBy over rdau:P60848 (“has
>> referential relationship with”). The latter property is symmetric,
>> and we see clear use cases (such as tracing a path of intellectual
>> influence) where symmetry is not desirable. We will use BF 2.0
>> properties except for relationships that we can express with
>> rdau:P60250 (“is derivative”) and rdau:P60191 (“has equivalent”) (and
>> their subproperties) and proposed properties for relating events and
>> works.Accompanying, sequential, and whole/part relationships will be
>> addressed in other discussion papers and/or future work.”
>>
>> A couple properties slipped in to our proposal that I would hope we
>> move away from (like “adapted as choreography” should be replaced
>> with the more general “adapted as”), but otherwise I think it still
>> holds up. As you said, through testing these decisions can be tuned.
>>
>> Thanks, Steven
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/17, 1:13 PM, "Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative
>> Forum on behalf of Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask] on behalf
>> of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> thanks, Steven. This is along the lines of what I was suggesting. I
>> note in the LD4L document[1] that you list the RDAU relationship
>> properties and sub-properties, e.g.
>>
>> rdau:P60250 Label: is derivative URI:
>> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60250 Definition: Relates a
>> resource to a resource that is a modification of a source resource.
>> Subproperties: ●rdau:P60115 "is modified by variation as"
>> ●rdau:P60120 "is remade as" ●rdau:P60121 "is set to music as"
>> ●rdau:P60177 "is abstracted in" ●rdau:P60178 "is indexed in"
>> ●rdau:P60180 "is adapted as choreography" etc.
>>
>> Is LD4L using the full sub-property group? (Or potentially, could
>> it?) If so, that could go a long way to making more of a match
>> between RDA and BF in Joe's list, which only includes the higher
>> level relationships.
>>
>> Or, when you say: sticking to the general properties, do you mean
>> only the highest level, e.g. "is derivative"? Does your comment
>> about including resource types in properties as an "anti-pattern"
>> include properties like "is set to music as"? I think in a sense the
>> rdau property name is reflecting a range definition, and assumes
>> perhaps a point of validation for matching the relationship and the
>> range. Is LD4L taking a strict approach on that?
>>
>> kc [1]
>> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/LD4P/bibliotek-o?preview=/79795231/83237330/bibliotek-o_pattern_relations_201612.pdf
>>
>> On 10/20/17 12:30 PM, Steven Michael Folsom wrote:
>>> In the LD4L analysis and adoption of BF2 we chose simply to extend
>>> BF2 using select RDAU properties. [1]
>>>
>>> RDAU isn’t perfect, but sticking to the general properties would
>>> get us pretty far. Our biggest reason for only using *select* RDAU
>>> properties is proliferation caused by the anti-pattern of minting
>>> new properties to account for the type of things being related; we
>>> don’t need “is opera adaptation of” if we have the more general “is
>>> adaptation of” and an Opera class/genre term.
>>>
>>> Similarly, using relationships to create new classes (as described
>>> in Joe’s bf:ChoreographicAdaption example below) causes unnecessary
>>> Class proliferation; each class would then require parallel classes
>>> for all the different types of relationships between resources.
>>>
>>> The other option being floated below (using bflc:Relationship)
>>> seems like over engineering for a problem that could be solved with
>>> just reusing the parts of RDAU that are well designed.
>>>
>>> Is this under consideration?
>>>
>>> Respectfully, Steven
>>>
>>> [1] For more information on the LD4L analysis of BIBFRAME, see: -
>>> https://bibliotek-o.org/overview/overview.html -
>>> https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/LD4P/bibliotek-o
>>>
>>
>> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m:
>> +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>>
>


--
Osma Suominen
D.Sc. (Tech), Information Systems Specialist
National Library of Finland
P.O. Box 26 (Kaikukatu 4)
00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO
Tel. +358 50 3199529
[log in to unmask]
http://www.nationallibrary.fi

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

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