Print

Print


This is essentially some thinking aloud so I'm not so sure it's helpful except to me (and even then...). I have focussed on MARC conversion as MARC legacy data seems to the main problem here. There do seem to be too many bits of information we are trying to convert in a compact form. The MARC 100 field conveys, as far as I can work out, four bits of information (not counting the distinctions between 100, 110, 111 etc.):

1. The work (in the loosest sense) itself: e.g. the Requiem.
2. The creation relationship (creator or contributor, i.e. 100 or 700)
3. The precise nature of the relationship ($e)
4. The person (or whatever) doing the creating or contributing

The problem seems to be in squashing up 2 and 3 in a precise yet varied form without losing any data. 

You could do something like schema.org (after admittedly only a quick look) and only use :creator and :contributor, not bothering with the further precision of the $e element.

bf:1234 a bf:Work .
bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
bf:1234 bf:creator bf:9999 .

bf:9999 a bf:Authority .
bf:9999 bf:label "Mozart" .

This would convert easily if nothing else, but would lose any existing $e's, orthodox or not and miss out on the RDA relationship that I think will be really useful. A second option would perhaps concentrate on the precise relationship in subfield $e where available.

bf:1234 a bf:Work .
bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
bf:1234 bf:composer bf:9999 .

bf:9999 a bf:Authority .
bf:9999 bf:label "Mozart" .

This could presumably default to bf:creator or bf:contributor for records where a 100 or 700 is used without relationship designators. This would fit in everything as long as the URI for the relationship is minted somewhere (and I doubt BIBFRAME could hope to keep up with the possible variations in RDA use (especially with the freedom to coin more that RDA grants in Appendix I: "If none of the terms listed in this appendix is appropriate or sufficiently specific, use another concise term to indicate the nature of the relationship."), not to mention use of all sorts of schemes outside of MARC conversions).

Given that a) BIBFRAME cannot possibly control all relationship designations and b) BIBFRAME needs to handle both URIs and textual relationships, I cannot see how this can possibly be kept simple- although I dearly hope it can be- without being willing to lose some data. The current BIBFRAME approach of putting the relationship in the Authority can't work but I wonder, reluctantly, whether a BIBFRAME Relationship entity (or a fancy blank node) standing between the Work and Authority is the only way to do it (apologies for making up loads of properties on the way):

bf:1234 a bf:Work .
bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
bf:1234 bf:hasRelationship bf:0001 .

bf:0001 a bf:Relationship .
bf:0001 bf:relationshipType bf:creator .
bf:0001 bf:relationshipDesignation bf:composer .
bf:0001 bf:relatedAgent bf:9999 .

bf:9999 a bf:Authority .
bf:9999 bf:label "Mozart" .

And an example using the "supposed compeser":

bf:1234 a bf:Work .
bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
bf:1234 bf:hasRelationship bf:0002 .

bf:0002 a bf:Relationship .
bf:0002 bf:relationshipType bf:creator .
bf:0002 bf:relationshipDesignation "supposed compeser" .
bf:0002 bf:relatedAgent bf:9999 .

bf:9998 a bf:Authority .
bf:9998 bf:label "Salieri" .

Because :creator, :composer and the agent involved are all objects of the triples, they could easily be literals or URIs (and even those URIs can't possibly always be BIBFRAME ones). I expect the last thing BIBFRAME wants to do is add another first class entity to the model and querying the above would be considerably less fun, but given the willingness to apply complexity to Annotations and the importance of relationships but their wide variance in past and anticipated practice (again, RDA app. I), is this a silly idea? I did wonder at one point whether this additional layer was what BIBFRAME Authorities was aiming at anyway.

Thanks,

Tom

---

Thomas Meehan
Head of Current Cataloguing
Library Services
University College London
Gower Street
London WC1E 6BT

[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: 15 May 2013 16:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME authorities: relationToWork

Thomas, these are precisely my conclusions as well. And I also agree that the transcribed data should be a property of the Instance since different instances will have different transcriptions for the same entity. That's a good point.

Note that if there is a separate BIBFRAME authority for each role a person plays, then to which of these to you link person-related annotations (like the image and bio in my diagrams)?[1] You would have to link them to all of them.

Perhaps we should conclude that the example is in error. However, that still leaves the question of what to do with creative roles that are not represented by a URI.

kc

[1] http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2013/05/bibframe-authorities.html

On 5/15/13 12:55 AM, Meehan, Thomas wrote:
> Karen,
>
> At the risk of narcissistic spamming, my comments on this were (I used triples as I find them easier to read):
>
> I would welcome some clarity about what the relatedToWork property means in Example 3 (section 2.3. Bad data). My understanding is that a BIBFRAME Authority would, if the Direct option were eschewed, stand in for an authority record as at least a local bridge between a work and published linked data schemes. As such, I imagine one BIBFRAME Authority id (or record if you will) to be associated with one person or entity. However using a relationToWork property within the BIBFRAME Authority suggests to me either that each BIBFRAME Work would require a separate BIBFRAME Authority or that each Person would require a separate BIBFRAME Authority for each role they perform (e.g. composer, librettist, first violin, supposed compeser).
>
> I imagined instead the BIBFRAME Authority being an aggregation of data about the person or entity with the relationship being expressed between the Work/Instance and the Authority. If anything, shouldn't the complexity be shifted to the Work/Instance instead? Off the top of my head:
>
> bf:1234 a bf:Work .
> bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
> bf:1234 bf:composer bf:9999 .
>
> bf:9999 a bf:Authority .
> bf:9999 bf:label "Mozart" .
>
> In the above case, bf:9999 could be reused thousands of times for Mozart and still be applicable, the relationship changing if he happened to be the librettist instead (or as well). I understand this does get more complicated with the unreliable examples of $e and any option I play with involving blank nodes ends up looking not unlike a BIBFRAME Authority. For human-readable data though, especially that based on AACR2/RDA records, the statement of responsibility and notes often provide the relationship information even if it were stripped or simplified from the old $e:
>
> bf:1234 a bf:Work .
> bf:1234 bf:label "Requiem" .
> bf:1234 bf:creator bf:9998 .
> bf:1234 bf:generalNote "Supposedly composed by Salieri. But was it?!?" .
>
> bf:9998 a bf:Authority .
> bf:9998 bf:label "Salieri" .
>
> Similarly, I don't see why "K.G. Saur" is in the BIBFRAME Authority for the publisher in Example 4 (section 2.6). If it's a version of the name for authority purposes, then that's fine. If it's meant to be a transcription of what it says on the Instance, then shouldn't it be in with the Instance data? Example 5 uses this latter kind of approach, which could be supplemented by a link to a BIBFRAME Authority.
>
> Tom
>
> ---
>
> Thomas Meehan
> Head of Current Cataloguing
> Library Services
> University College London
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: 15 May 2013 01:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME authorities: relationToWork
>
> There is an example under "Bad Data":
>
> <!--  BIBFRAME Work -->
> <*Play* id =
> "*http://bibframe/work/Quatuor-pour-trois-violons-et-violoncelle*">
>         <title>Quatuor pour trois violons et violoncelle</title>
>         <creator resource = "http://bibframe/auth/person/franklin" /> 
> </*Play*>
> <!--  BIBFRAME Authority -->
> <*Person* id="http://bibframe/auth/person/franklin">
>         <label>Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790</label>
>         <relationToWork>supposed compeser.</relationToWork>
>         <hasIDLink
> resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79043402" />
>         <hasVIAFLink resource="http://viaf.org/viaf/56609913" />
>         <hasDNBLink resource="http://d-nb.info/gnd/118534912" /> 
> </*Person*>
>
> There is a problem with "<relationToWork>supposed compeser.</relationToWork>" that goes beyond the bad data.
>
> I believe that someone else mentioned this, but if "relationToWork" is a property of the Person, then that Person ID cannot be used for any other relationship (e.g. "author") because as expressed here relationToWork is being said about the Person, period. There needs instead to be a triple that has:
>
> WorkURI - relationToWork - PersonURI
>
> This then states the relationship of the Person to that particular work, and doesn't change the underlying definition of the Person.
> Unfortunately, this isn't possible when the value of "relationToWork" is not a URI, because properties (the middle parts of the triples) have to be URIs. For example, if this information were coded using the MARC relator standard "<http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cmp>" then you could say:
>
> http://bibframe.org/work/Quatuor-pour-trois-violons-et-violoncelle - 
> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/cmp - 
> http://bibframe.org/auth/person/franklin
>
> Which means that this person is the composer of the Work. (I don't know if there's a code for "supposed composer" but I'm pretending that "cmp"
> will do.)
>
> To resolve this, and this is a case that we will encounter, there will have to be some contortions, possibly a blank node:
>
> WorkURI - Creator -_blankA
>
> _blankA - typeOf - http://bibframe.org/vocab/Person _blankA - authID - 
> http://bibframe.org/auth/person/franklin
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/label -  "Franklin, Benjamin, 1706-1790"
> _blankA - http://bibframe.org/vocab/resourceRole - "supposed compeser"
>
> The difference between the blank node and the way I interpret the "lightweight BIBFRAME authority" is that the blank node is a one-off -- it's only  usable in this one instance. There is no creation of an identity that could be re-used in other circumstances (although, as I've done above, it can link to an identity, such as an authority record).
> Blank nodes are considered last resorts by some linked data enthusiasts because they aren't re-usable. But there are times when you really have little choice.
>
> This brings up a specific question about the BIBFRAME authority: Is it intended to be re-usable? Or does it have the "one-off" nature of a blank node?
>
> kc
> p.s. There are undoubtedly other solutions to this problem, and I hope they'll get posted here.
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

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