 |
 |
On 8/21/13 9:34 AM, Gordon Dunsire wrote: > Karen > > I think the MARC relator codes are already declared as instances of > skos:Concept, as well as rdf:Property; see the "other" example given by > Kevin. But they are not in a separate list; the same URI is declared an > instance of Concept and Property. Hmm. It seems odd that the same URI would be used for both a property and a SKOS concept. The SKOS standard doesn't prevent this (it's very liberal), but I'm puzzling over what it means in an implementation. A -> [some SKOS Concept/Property] -> B A -> [some Property] -> [some SKOS Concept/Property] For a term like "Author" it seems that it could either mean "is author of" or "has author" or "is an author". The definition begins: " A person, family, or organization responsible for creating a work that is primarily textual in content..." Would all of these be valid/sensible? John -> lc:author -> Big Book BigBook -> lc:author -> John John -> bf:role -> lc:author lc:author -> bf:role -> John My attempts to see what happens with content negotiation failed, so I can't see how the URI self-identifies. Boh. > > Btw, I don't think "other" is an RDA relationship designator. The > "Definition notes" (is that the same as a definition?) for the MARC relator > cited by Kevin are "A role that has no equivalent in the MARC list", so I > guess it is a MARC relator grab-bag for RDA relationship designators that > have no MARC relator code equivalent. Apologies if I've got this wrong. Gordon, when we were inputting the RDA vocabularies there often was an "other" included in the RDA text. "Other", however, is pretty useless as a term unless you have a way to say what the "other" is (like on some forms where "other" is followed by a blank line that you fill in). We talked to the JSC about possible solutions to this from an application point of view, but of course there is no application so there is currently no solution. Basically, you need to capture SOMETHING that can be helpful in the future, something that lets you know what the cataloger encountered (e.g. a new physical format for which there wasn't a vocabulary term yet). Even a text note would be better than just "other". kc > > For a discussion on the semantic relationship between RDA relationship > designators and MARC relator codes, see the discussion paper submitted to > JSC [1], and the related appendix 1 [2] > > Any comments are most welcome! > > Cheers > > Gordon > > [1] http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-rep-3.pdf > [2] http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-CILIP-rep-3-Appendix-1.pdf > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle > Sent: 21 August 2013 23:20 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Authority - Treatment of role data > > On 8/21/13 6:46 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote: >> Dear Stephen, >> >>> The option of listing the same name in two role properties for the >>> same resource is a reasonable solution to the multi-role problem.... >>> It also keeps the role specification in the BIBFRAME Work where I >>> think it belongs. >> -- This, this is the objective. >> >> It is anticipated that all the MARC Relator codes - already instantiated > as properties - will be available in BIBFRAME. > > Kevin, doesn't this, in a sense, answer the question at 3.2 "A Role > resource?" That method requires an object for the role, that is, a noun, not > a property (verb). This is the same situation that we discussed in the > annotation arena -- BIBFRAME is using individual properties to relate the > body to the annotation, while Open Annotation has a general relator > (hasBody) and then allows the body to be typed using any defined "thing". > That's a "verb vs. noun" situation. > > With the MARC relators as properties, they cannot be used as the role "noun" > as shown in 3.2. A new list would need to be developed, probably defining > the terms as SKOS concepts, to accommodate this option. In theory, with the > role as a noun, one could make use of terms from sources like DBpedia, like > http://dbpedia.org/page/Animator, which is defined as a "thing" rather than > a property, but I suspect that many in the library world would frown on > using terms from there. > > It seems to me that the decision to be made isn't so much about the > structure of the authority but the anticipated uses, including vocabulary > maintenance (as you mention) and linking to other communities that create > bibliographic data. This is less of a question for subjects since there is > only one relationship there, at least as we have currently defined it. I can > imagine having primary and secondary subjects, or some other refinement of > "has subject" but we don't have that now -- however, if we did want to > refine subject, then we'd have the same question to answer. > > kc > > > > > > >> The MARC Relators list and RDA relationship designators (mostly Appendix > I) were reconciled earlier this year (it was not announced on this list, > which seems like an oversight presently, but you can find the original > announcement here [1]). RDA included an "other" [2]. We are exploring > integrating those properties with the overall BIBFRAME vocabulary, which > will infuse the BIBFRAME vocabulary with over 250 resource-to-agent > relationships. >> If one of more than the 250 relationship properties is not appropriate, > there is a way to essentially generate a custom relationship (i.e. property) > and use it instead. Creating one's own relationship/property will require > slightly more infrastructure than simply inputting a relationship into a > free-text field, but will ultimately create data that is more machine > actionable. In part this will require an education effort (that is, a "how > to") and partly it will require thinking about how to integrate custom > property creation (and exposure) into system design. >> For example, you find you absolutely need a property for "Commentator of > sculpted art work." There is a way to mint such a property and use it in > your data, but what will be needed (beyond an educational effort that > describes this more fully) is a system that 1) can accommodate this need and > 2) actually publish the URI for your custom property in order to help others > to understand it. >> Warmly, >> Kevin >> >> >> [1] >> http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305&L=marc&T=0&X=54463610E73 >> 528A6E1&P=1046 [2] http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/oth >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn >>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 6:15 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Authority - Treatment of role data >>> >>> The option of listing the same name in two role properties for the >>> same resource is a reasonable solution to the multi-role problem, >>> especially if there's a way to assign a name to a less or >>> un-specified or an invented role property. It also keeps the role >>> specification in the BIBFRAME Work where I think it belongs. >>> >>> I still worry that it might lock down the vocabulary for describing >>> role with BIBFRAME, assuming "author" and "illustrator" in the >>> example are BIBFRAME properties. Having native BIBFRAME define a more >>> limited set of generic relationship categories and letting a type >>> attribute with a declared source vocabulary determine what the role >>> terms/codes are used in a given implementation seems more flexible. >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> Dear Stephen, >>> >>> Thanks for the comments. A few answers and comments of my own follow: >>> >>>> Will a single person playing >>>> multiple roles be entered as multiple property statements for the >>> same >>>> resource, or will there be a way to specify multiple roles in the >>>> context of a single property statement? >>> -- The document does not include an example of this, but here is one: >>> >>> <!-- BIBFRAME Work --> >>> <Book id = "http://bibframe/work/the-garden-of-abdul-gasazi"> >>> <title>The garden of Abdul Gasazi</title> >>> <author resource = "http://bibframe/auth/person/chris-van-allsburg" >>> /> >>> <illustrator resource = " http://bibframe/auth/person/chris-van- >>> allsburg" /> </Book> >>> >>> <!-- BIBFRAME Authority --> >>> <Person id="http://bibframe/auth/person/chris-van-allsburg "> >>> <authorizedAccessPoint>Van Allsburg, >>> Chris</authorizedAccessPoint> >>> <hasAuthority >>> resource="http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n79071437" /> </Person> >>> >>> Two (defined) role properties on the Work both point to a single >>> Person Authority. >>> >>> >>>> Will BIBFRAME have an option >>>> for unspecified or "other" role, given that the role terms appear to >>>> be part of BIBFRAME's controlled vocabulary in Example 2? >>> -- Yes. >>> >>> >>>> The addition of Role as a BIBFRAME Authority resource mediating >>>> between a Work and a Person in 3.2 would lead to requiring multiple >>>> BIBFRAME Authorities for the same entity playing different roles. >>> -- There would be a separate Role resource for every role, but there >>> would be only one BIBFRAME Authority per entity. If this isn't >>> clear, I can work up a more detailed example. >>> >>> >>>> Section 3.4 >>> -- About section 3.4: For starters, I'll probably rename it Anomalous >>> Data in a revision. Good word, wish I had thought of it. To be >>> clear, I don't like what's being proposed, but in the interest of a >>> simpler, future solution I worry about adopting a overly complicated >>> approach (which, I believe, is what the Role proposal is) in order to >>> accommodate anomalous data, which is, on the whole, a small >>> percentage of existing data and, if we can envision better cataloging >>> interfaces in the future, I would hope a non-existent issue. I'm >>> also not crazy about two different approaches; when it comes to >>> exchange and comprehension, we'll all benefit from a single solution >>> (even if it isn't perfect in 100% of cases). >>> >>> >>>> Rather than either of these, would it be possible instead to limit >>>> BIBFRAME Work properties to Creator and Contributor (roughly >>>> reflecting the distinction in Simplified Dublin Core and MARC's >>>> 1XX/7XX) and then allow repeatable Type attributes or a Type >>> attribute >>>> with multiple values for those the Creator and Contributor >>>> properties to specify role more precisely for a given entity's >>>> relationship to a >>> resource? >>> -- In many ways what you are proposing here is the Role resource >>> avenue, especially when you start talking about typeTerm, typeCode, >>> and typeURI attributes/properties. But, before we continue this >>> conversation, I have two quick questions for you: >>> >>> 1) Does my example above - demonstrating how to relate one Person >>> Authority with multiple roles to a Work - impact your questions? >>> 2) What is it *you* want to do? I ask because I started to wonder >>> what benefit you saw in limiting Work properties to Creator and >>> Contributor followed by a whole typing system. >>> >>> >>> Yours, >>> Kevin >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 2:26 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: [BIBFRAME] Authority - Treatment of role data >>>> >>>> The modeling of role in 2.2 has problems. Will a single person >>>> playing multiple roles be entered as multiple property statements >>>> for the same resource, or will there be a way to specify multiple >>>> roles >>> in >>>> the context of a single property statement? Will BIBFRAME have an >>>> option for unspecified or "other" role, given that the role terms >>>> appear to be part of BIBFRAME's controlled vocabulary in Example 2? >>>> >>>> The addition of Role as a BIBFRAME Authority resource mediating >>>> between a Work and a Person in 3.2 would lead to requiring multiple >>>> BIBFRAME Authorities for the same entity playing different roles. >>> That >>>> runs counter to the plan of having one BIBFRAME Authority per >>> entity. >>>> Section 3.4 acknowledges this, but argues that multi-role cases (or >>> at >>>> least those resulting from anomalous data) will be a "very, very >>> small >>>> percentage of the whole"--but inevitably it will tend to be those >>>> named entities which are most prolific which will turn out to have >>> the >>>> most roles (and the most anomalous roles in existing data), so >>> dealing >>>> with these cases more efficiently will still be a concern. >>>> >>>> Rather than either of these, would it be possible instead to limit >>>> BIBFRAME Work properties to Creator and Contributor (roughly >>>> reflecting the distinction in Simplified Dublin Core and MARC's >>>> 1XX/7XX) and then allow repeatable Type attributes or a Type >>> attribute >>>> with multiple values for those the Creator and Contributor >>>> properties to specify role more precisely for a given entity's >>>> relationship to a resource? The Type attribute would not be >>>> required, so if an agent's role has no controlled value, the agent >>>> could still be named in relation to the Work in more general terms >>>> as a Creator or Contributor. BIBFRAME Instance records might need to >>>> add another general role term or two, but would leave more specific >>>> role terms to >>> a Type attribute. >>>> The "bad data" case could be managed by defining a separate >>>> "typeUnrecognized" attribute which could contain any text. To ensure >>>> better control of "good data", the Creator/Contributor Type >>> attributes >>>> might be expanded into typeTerm, typeCode, and typeURI, each with >>>> declared schema-level or implementation-level parameters. >>>> >>>> Adding a new work in which someone named in an existing BIBFRAME >>>> Authority has a new role should not require adding a new BIBFRAME >>>> Authority. Making role part of the BIBFRAME Authority will place a >>>> burden on it which a lightweight abstraction layer shouldn't have to >>>> carry. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> We wanted to share two documents with you all. One is new, the >>>> other is an updated version. >>>> >>>> The BIBFRAME Use Cases and Requirements document "...specifies use >>>> cases, requirements, and objectives for BIBFRAME. It suggests how >>>> BIBFRAME supports a variety of traditional and forward looking uses >>>> cases, describes the communications environment for the use cases in >>>> BIBFRAME, and describes the model communication format and >>>> acceptable serializations. For each use cases, supporting >>>> requirements and >>> design >>>> objectives are defined." >>>> >>>> The Use Case and Requirements document is not inclusive. We fully >>>> anticipate adding to it. In fact, we hope and expect the document >>>> will elicit additional use cases from the community. But, besides >>> new >>>> use cases, we encourage feedback about the ones detailed in the >>>> document. It is accessible at: >>>> >>>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases/ >>>> >>>> The second document is a significant revision of the /On BIBFRAME >>>> Authority/ discussion paper. The current version reflects changes, >>>> additions, and deletions stemming largely from your feedback - thank >>>> you. Although it has been slightly re-engineered toward acceptance >>> of >>>> the "lightweight abstraction layer," the major issues - outlined in >>>> the previous version or raised from listserv comment - are still >>>> represented. As before, we look forward to the discussion. The >>>> revised version is available at: >>>> >>>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ >>>> >>>> When starting a new topical thread about the papers, please start a >>>> create new email with a descriptive subject, such as "use cases -- >>> web >>>> triggers," "use cases -- authority reconciliation," or "authority -- >>>> direct approach." >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kevin Ford >>>> Network Development and MARC Standards Office Library of Congress >>>> Washington, DC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist >>>> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota >>>> 160 Wilson Library >>>> 309 19th Avenue South >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55455 >>>> Ph: 612-625-2328 >>>> Fx: 612-625-3428 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist >>> Technical Services, University Libraries University of Minnesota >>> 160 Wilson Library >>> 309 19th Avenue South >>> Minneapolis, MN 55455 >>> Ph: 612-625-2328 >>> Fx: 612-625-3428 > -- > 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