Print

Print


Owen,

Thanks so much, exactly what I needed to get my brain moving.  We have 
indeed used this Cambridge model for some linked data experiments here 
and in some ways the BIBFRAME abstraction layer is a brilliant solution 
to repetitive links needing to be added in each individual resource 
description.  I think what was tripping me up was calling these 
Authorities (as others have mentioned on different threads), I expect 
much more from an authority.  In terms of our catalog, we have many 
uncontrolled, unlinked headings.  In conversion to BIBFRAME, these 
headings become "authorities" but they serve the same representative 
function.  If we create a standard authority in the LC NAF, we would 
clean up our local BIBFRAME authorities as we would our local headings 
in our current model.

I have to remind myself that BIBFRAME is meant to be a communication 
format.  When I look at our current model of resource description I find 
it unsupportable even for traditional library materials.  When I 
consider trying to take advantage of the nearly infinite number of 
resources available, the situation becomes even more untenable.  But 
this is not the question BIBFRAME is trying to answer ....

Philip

On 5/16/2013 3:55 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> The way I read this was that if you created a BIBFRAME Work you would also create BIBFRAME Authorities as necessary to describe the resource. I think BIBFRAME is just describing something that is in line with usual practices in the Linked Data space here. To take an existing Library example from the University of Cambridge Linked Data set (http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk) in Turtle:
>
>
> @prefix rdf:<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>  .
> @prefix dct:<http://purl.org/dc/terms/>  .
> @prefix rdfs:<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>  .
> @prefix foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1#>  .
> @prefix owl:<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>  .
>
> <http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entry/cambrdgedb_1009003>  dct:title "Unpopular essays on technological progress" ;
>                                                          dct:creator<http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entity/cambrdgedb_341d9416c3b4a9d8827a9bb988a5bdeb>  ;
>
> <http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entity/cambrdgedb_341d9416c3b4a9d8827a9bb988a5bdeb>  rdfs:label "Rescher, Nicholas" ;
>                                                                                    rdf:type foaf:Person ;
>                                                                                    foaf:name "Rescher, Nicholas" ;
>                                                                                    owl:sameAs<http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377>  .
>
> Even though a VIAF identifier exists for Nicholas Rescher the University of Cambridge still creates a local entity for Nicholas Rescher. It then goes on to state that this entity is the same as the VIAF identity http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377.
>
> As I say - I believe this to be standard practice in the linked data space, although I'm not sure there is anything explicit to stop you re-writing the above as:
>
> @prefix rdf:<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>  .
> @prefix dct:<http://purl.org/dc/terms/>  .
> @prefix rdfs:<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>  .
> @prefix foaf:<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1#>  .
> @prefix owl:<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>  .
>
> <http://data.lib.cam.ac.uk/id/entry/cambrdgedb_1009003>  dct:title "Unpopular essays on technological progress" ;
>                                                          dct:creator<http://viaf.org/viaf/108297377>  ;
>
> The BIBFRAME Authority document refers to this latter approach as 'direct'. Using this latter approach has disadvantages. I don't have a local entity to make my own statements about it, and I don't have any local values to fall back on if there is a problem accessing VIAF at any time. As Karen pointed out, there maybe other technological solutions to the latter problem, but repeating some minimal data elements to offer some robustness is not unusual.
>
> I believe the approach taken by Cambridge did, in some cases, lead to duplication of entities (although I can't find any examples) - these occurred where the form of (for example) the author name in one record was inconsistent with the form use in another record referencing the same author. I think this is inevitable on converting records from MARC. I suspect three stages to making bringing together multiple statements that in face represent the same entity:
>
> 1) some matching when converting the records and creating BIBFRAME data in the first place
> 2) matching to external sources from BIBFRAME data and finding disparate entities in your data that match to the same external entity
> 3) manual matching as and when issues are noticed
>
> I imagine 2 and 3 are ongoing processes. I think I wouldn't expect 2 and 3 to lead to the deletion of any created entity, but rather to the creation of new statements of equivalence between them. The better (1) works then the less duplication there will be, but it's never going to perfect.
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 15 May 2013, at 18:51, Philip Schreur<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> I keep bumping my head against "It is anticipated that the BIBFRAME Authority ... would be identified with a URI of the domain creating the resource." I'm not exactly sure what the implications are here.  Is it saying that the first organization (or person) creating a description of a resource would be responsible for creating all needed BIBFRAME authorities and mint them under its own domain?  If this is the case, is it expected that these BIBFRAME authorities would be shareable, that is, once created, no one else would need create a BIBFRAME authority for the same entity?  One issue I see here is that if BIBFRAME hopes to be adopted beyond the library world, there may be many that cannot use the model because they do not have a domain.  Also, if these BIBFRAME authorities are meant to be created once, how will they be editable by others outside the domain?  For instance, I may discover an ORCID ID I wish to add.  On the other hand, if each group that wishes to make use of the data for the resource needs to have its own version of the BIBFRAME authority, the duplication is frightening.
>>
>> In a practical way, I'm trying to think of this model in application to a digital collection we have here of 400K images, documents, etc. called REVS (all centered around the automobile).  If we adopted BIBFRAME, I'd like to be able to use it to communicate all of our data, not just the small percentage that qualifies as traditional library.  Given the size of the collection, lower level staff or students will be responsible for creation of the metadata (and so the BIBFRAME authorities).  The possibility that separate BIBFRAME authorities would be created for the same entity is extremely high.  The likelihood that we could afford the time to add links to authority files such as VIAF (if the entity existed there) is minimal.  In cleaning up a heading in our catalog that was previously uncontrolled, it is not unusual to find 4 or 5 variants.  I assume in the REVS situation we might have many more BIBFRAME authorities then that for the same entity.
>>
>> And so .... in this model I'm left with a bunch of isolated BIBFRAME authorities for the same entity both isolated from each other in our own domain and isolated from any larger, more traditional authority file.  This certainly defeats the purpose of using a URI in terms of linking but does it matter if BIBFRAME is only meant for communication?  Is the reconciliation a separate problem?
>>
>> At first glance, I'd prefer pursuing methods of easing the creation (and in some cases automated) of more traditional records in a networked cluster of authority hubs and following the Direct method.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> -- 
>> Philip E. Schreur
>> Head, Metadata Department
>> Stanford University
>> 650-723-2454
>> 650-725-1120 (fax)


-- 

Philip E. Schreur
Head, Metadata Department
Stanford University
650-723-2454
650-725-1120 (fax)