Print

Print


I would put this in far stronger terms.

Right now, bibframe is saying, in no uncertain terms, that you can *only*
use hasAnnotation to associate an Annotation with something that is at the
same time a Work, an Instance, and an Authority.

One cannot  use rdf(s), completely ignore what the specifications say, and
expect the result to be welcomed in  to the web of linked open data anymore
than one can file a tax return using ones own definitions of arithmetic and
expect the Treasury to figure out that you are taking "+" to mean
subtraction.

Simon
On Mar 23, 2013 3:50 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You may want to actually use schema:domain and schema:range rather than
> rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. Telling people not to infer too much isn't
> enough because tools may be involved.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 23, 2013, at 3:25 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Simon,****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeff's assessment is correct.  At this time, do not infer too much from
> domain and range with BIBFRAME except to denote expected use.  It is
> generally safe to assume inheritence from supertypes to subtypes.****
>
> ** **
>
> Presently, we're striving to be informative without being restrictive.
> That's to say that were focused on vocabulary and requirements at this time
> after which it would be time to explore more formal schema declarations
> (again, if desirable).****
>
> ** **
>
> Yours,****
>
> Kevin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
> Of *Young,Jeff (OR)
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:52 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] The Bibframe ontology uses multiple domains in
> a probably unintended way.****
>
> ** **
>
> Simon,****
>
> ** **
>
> I think Kevin is imagining schema:domain and schema:range type meaning as
> opposed to rdfs:domain and rdfs:range meaning. These are annotation
> properties that amount to guidelines rather that strong RDFS/OWL assertions
> capable of sustaining inferences.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPad****
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:41 PM, "Simon Spero" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:***
> *
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:****
>
>  ****
>
> Right, your conclusions are correct based on what we've published.  We
> would have to employ a unionOf axiom to ensure against unwanted collisions.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> However, we're interested in minimally constrained semantics and what you
> are seeing is a nod toward that goal. ****
>
> ** **
>
>  I think there may be some confusion here.****
>
> ** **
>
> The current vocabulary is not *minimally* constrained; it is instead
> closer to being maximally constrained. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Every domain statement that is added to a property increases the
> constraints on how that property can be used.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> As things are now, the *only* things that can be annotated are things
> that are *simultaneously* Works, instances, and authorities.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> If you want to be able to annotate some Works but not Authorities, then
> you have to do something different.  This does not even require using OWL.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Simon****
>
> ** **
>
>