The problem I am concerned about is local additions that are not universally recognized as part of BIBFRAME. I have used the word "extension", which may not be the best. My concern is that BIBFRAME will become a ceiling rather than a floor because in practice additions will be ignored by some or all users.
rdf, rdfs and madsrdf are used with BIBFRAME by policy decision rather than being innately part of it. If the rdau space had the same official standing, then my problem would seem to be solved.
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 2:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Resource relationships
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?"
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> 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 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
> 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 
> 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. 
>> 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
>>  For more information on the LD4L analysis of BIBFRAME, see: -
>> https://bibliotek-o.org/overview/overview.html -
> -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m:
> +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net