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  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:

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:03:27 +0300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (69 lines)

Theodore Gerontakos kirjoitti 26.10.2017 klo 00:04:
> The following assertion:
> 
> <WorkA>    bf:relationship    [
> 
>                                bf:relatedTo  <WorkB> ]
> 
> ...asserts that the unnamed "thing" represented by the blank node is 
> related to <WorkB>. But the blank-node-thing is not related to <WorkB>, 
> <WorkA> is related to <WorkB>. How could an application understand 
> anything else without great effort?

At first I thought you're reading too much into the bf:relatedTo 
relationship, but you have a point. bf:relatedTo is a superproperty of 
many other relationships between Works, Instances and Expressions. It's 
not ideal to reuse the same property for this case. A separate property 
such as bf:relationshipTarget (where the domain is bf:Relationship) 
would be more appropriate IMHO.

> It seems like we want to qualify a relation. I’ve seen that discussion 
> before; see for example Dodds and Davis, "Qualified Relation" 
> (http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/qualified-relation.html). For 
> Dodds/Davis, there are only two solutions. Are they correct?

Other than the above point about using bf:relatedTo in different 
contexts and the fact that bf:relationship is directed from the work to 
the relationship and not the other way around, the example you give is 
equivalent to the Diagnosis pattern by Dodds and Davis. (The Marriage 
pattern by D&D is slightly different because it represents a symmetric 
relationship)

> The way I see it, the proposed BIBFRAME solution, though admirable 
> because it attempts to create a reusable structure for all qualified 
> relations, inaccurately expresses the relation.

The bf:relatedTo property is used in so many contexts that its semantics 
are rather vague.

> I don’t think there’s an elegant way to create a re-usable pattern for 
> all qualified relations. I hope somebody can prove me wrong!

There are several patterns that can be applied more or less generally:

* The Qualified Relationship patterns you mention
* The Wikidata/Wikibase model (rather verbose in RDF, but may still be 
useful especially when dealing with data that lives in Wikidata)
* Using a blank node with rdf:value (typically when the value is a 
literal and you want to enrich the statement with more information, for 
example the unit of a measurement)
* Using named graphs / quads so that one can add extra information about 
particular (sub)graphs (often used for tracking provenance of triples)
* Reified statements (seldom used nowadays)

But choosing which pattern to apply and specifying the details has to be 
decided on a case by case basis.

-Osma


-- 
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

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