Along with Ross and Shlomo I am concerned that the theory of RDF/OWL and the actual practice may not meet in the foreseeable future. While it is absolutely logical to have: RDA:parallelTitle -> subclassOf ->RDA:titleProper-> subclassOf ->dcterms:title [1] I'm still waiting to see a solution that implements this, and implements it simply and efficiently. Another possibility, however, to "using" existing ontologies is to see library data as having a library-facing view inside library systems, but a public-facing view that it shows to the web. The public-facing view *would* use the common vocabularies. It would have less precision than "proper" library data, but would be understood by the web public. I see this as a solution because it seems highly unlikely that libraries will accept the less precise vocabularies used by others. kc [1] In particular because you can also have: foaf:name -> subclassOf -> dcterms:title since the definition of dcterms:title is " A name given to the resource." and anything -- documents, towns, people, chairs -- can be a resource. On 3/13/13 7:32 AM, Shlomo Sanders wrote: > > "The downside is that it would require a fair amount of > inference/reasoning to work, which is currently fairly unrealistic > (not impossible, just unrealistic for widespread adoption) which I > don't expect to change any time in the near future." > > In short, it can work but will be expensive for vendors to develop, > complicated and expensive for Libraries to use... > > Instead we should works towards a common vocabulary for the _most > important core information_. > > At least for some of the core stuff... bibo, dc, foaf, etc. > > Thanks, > > Shlomo > > Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure > <http://www.exlibrispublications.com/primo/> > > *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Ross Singer > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2013 15:56 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] Reuse (or not) of existing ontologies > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Shlomo Sanders > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > How can linking to RDF actually work in real life if each group has > their on vocabulary? > > Well, you align the vocabularies through RDFS, OWL, or something similar. > > Good RDF In and display in browser, sure that will work. > > But programmatic use of the data when there is no standard (or even > close to a standard) vocabulary? > > Well, this is exactly why one would propose RDF, simply because you > *can* explicitly align the vocabularies. The downside is that it > would require a fair amount of inference/reasoning to work, which is > currently fairly unrealistic (not impossible, just unrealistic for > widespread adoption) which I don't expect to change any time in the > near future. > > -Ross. > > Thanks, > > Shlomo > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 15:00, "Ross Singer" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Owen, I can't speak for Bibframe directly, but in the case, > say, of RDA, the argument against using existing vocabularies > vs. rolling your own and aligning them is that you can't > control the fate of vocabularies you don't own. So if > something happens to them (properties get deprecated/replaced, > domain registrations lapse, etc.), you still have control of > the predicates/classes you are using and can realign them as > necessary. > > Not saying that I necessarily subscribe to that philosophy > (although I see its merits), but I think that is probably the > argument. > > -Ross. > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > Thanks for this J�rg > > While obviously plans to align bibframe elements to other RDF > ontologies would be welcome, I'd be very interested to > understand that arguments against simply adopting existing > vocabularies where they exist? > > Owen > > Owen Stephens > > Owen Stephens Consulting > > Web: http://www.ostephens.com <http://www.ostephens.com/> > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Telephone: 0121 288 6936 > > On 12 Mar 2013, at 09:23, J�rg Prante <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > > > From my understanding, there will be a process of "alignment" > of Bibframe elements to other RDF elements. In the current > phase of early Bibframe developement, I assume the focus is > still on creating native Bibframe elements and vocabulary. > > There have been some work closely related to Bibframe > > - the W3C provenance incubator group charter > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/prov/charter > - ONIX for Marc21 and for RDA (ONIX in RDF still ongoing > work?) http://www.editeur.org/96/ONIX-and-MARC21 > - METS-PREMISE in RDF > http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/pif-presentations-2012/PREMIS-OWL-iPRES2012.pdf > - EAD to Europeana Data Model RDF > http://pro.europeana.eu/documents/900548/559c18d6-e5f3-410a-9e3e-7ee74f87c302 > - ... > > The results would be very interesting to see them aligned to > Bibframe elements. > > A wider perspective would be aligning the DataCite RDF > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1paJgvmCMu3pbM4in6PjWAKO0gP-6ultii3DWQslygq4/edit?authkey=CMeV3tgF&hl=en_GB > to Bibframe. This would exceed the traditional MARC scope and > would reveal the power of RDF by integrating research data > environments seamlessly with Bibframe'd library catalog metadata. > > Also expanding the view to publisher activities is helpful to > get some impressions for what could be done if there was > Bibframe-powered data. I saw > http://prezi.com/yc35ccin0ipg/discovering-and-using-rdf-at-oreilly-media/ > for an experience of a publisher when traveling a > market-driven path using RDF on XML-based metadata. > > J�rg > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet