Print

Print


100% agreed. Recreating the "library ghetto" using a different technology
misses the point entirely.  And recreating it in a technology carefully and
cleverly designed to avoid that exact problem is going to continue to draw
(IMO deserved) criticism. YMMV :)

Rob


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Laura Krier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Again, I don't find these compelling enough arguments against re-using
> existing vocabulary terms.
>
>  I think agility and flexibility is part of what makes RDF a good model.
> I don't think we should be aiming to develop something that won't change
> and adapt as other data models and vocabularies in the community change and
> adapt. I think the phrase "stuck with their definitions" is very telling to
> me about how this whole process is unraveling: Instead of working
> cooperatively with other organizations to create a data model that will
> work both within and outside of libraries, we are striking off on our own,
> creating something that only we will want to or be able to use. I don't
> think this is the right move.
>
>  The decision not to re-use existing vocabularies pushes me away from
> wanting to use BIBFRAME. The more I see an attempt to create an isolated
> model, the less likely I am to want to adopt it.
>
>  Laura
> --
> Laura Krier
>  Metadata Analyst
>  California Digital Library
>
>  510-987-0832
>
>  On May 23, 2013, at 8:39 AM, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> If you adopt someone else's terms, you are stuck with their definitions,
> and if they decide to change them, you have to revisit your decision: a
> constant maintenance headache.
>
> The foaf vocab is in Testing status, version 0.98. Are they going to
> change it before it comes out? Who knows?  Will they add something better
> like foaf:sortName that is more like a traditional library listing?
>
> Just coming up with a list of all the possible terms out there and
> fighting over whether they are close enough to use for each term we have
> will be a major use of time.
>
> On DC, people you might not be for it, but if we opened the BF vocab up,
> there might be a lot of clamor for it; it's so simple and it's all over the
> place!
>
> Nate
> PS I had a good laugh about the Unicode and ISO 639 "roll our own
> comment". I'm working right now on developing a computer that uses 2s and
> 3s instead of 1s and 0s.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stuart yeates [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> Cc: Trail, Nate
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> "lightweight abstraction layer")
>
> On 23/05/13 05:25, Trail, Nate wrote:
>
> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying on
> them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that
> consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces.
>
>
> The "syntactic sugar" option used by madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority
> does not introduce a new namespace from the users' point of view. The
> syntactic sugar can even be kept in a separate RDF file from the definition
> of the bibframe properties, making it second class and invisible to
> everyone who doesn't want it.
>
> In all cases, I can't
> see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or dc (or  >
> whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking about.
>
>
> Following that arguement we should also walk away from ISO 639, ISO 3166,
> RFC 3986, Unicode and so forth. None of them are perfect from a library
> point of view but all of the are better than rolling our own.
>
> [For the record I'm not suggestion using dc / Dublincore.]
>
> cheers
> stuart
> --
> Stuart Yeates
> Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
>
>
>