Print

Print


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