This seems to me to make the case for linking between library data 
elements and non-library elements, something that many have talked about 
for a while. I agree that it is unlikely that any other community is 
going to have exactly the same definition or usage of bibliographic data 
as libraries. But by making links, either sub-class, sub-property, or 
some other relationship, our data can be usable by the mainstream. One 
finds many examples of this in presentations by Diane Hillmann and 
Gordon Dunsire, either separately or together, and others who are active 
in this area. I'll link to a page from my training site, in case people 
want to see a diagram (I know I always do).

This shows a set of relationships between various types of title 
properties in RDA and the Dublin Core title property. Someone who 
doesn't care about the depth of detail of libraries can just read these 
RDA properties as being the same as dcterms:title, for their purposes. 
(Yes, it's a kind of "dumb down".) This would not be an annotation, but 
would be part of the definition of the ontology itself so that it only 
has to be done once.


On 5/22/13 10:25 AM, 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. 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.
> In some ways, I think here is a case  for annotations; I could see 
> people making assertions that x Work has some y relationship to z, and 
> Bibframe could say okay, stick that in an annotation and a system can 
> use it or not.
> Nate
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Laura Krier
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:54 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was 
> and the 
> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> On May 22, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> re: re-using other properties
> +1 but feel this ship has already sailed - previous replies have been 
> clear that BIBFRAME/LoC want to control the namespace.
> I'm not sure we should let this one go quite so easily. Not re-using 
> existing properties reducing a lot of the benefit and purpose of using 
> a linked data model in the first place. I haven't seen any reasoning 
> from LoC that I agree with about why they are making this decision. 
> And I think they've been very open to community opinion and input to 
> date.
> Does anyone else agree that this might be worth pushing harder against?
> Laura
> -- 
> Laura Krier
> Metadata Analyst
> California Digital Library
> 510-987-0832

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet