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]<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 Krier
Metadata Analyst
California Digital Library