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/ > > >