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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.




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]> 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 Krier

Metadata Analyst

California Digital Library



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