Print

Print


Karen-
There are no blank nodes in either example. relationship1 is the name of a
plain old non-blank node.

The issue with the second case is that it is taking information that is
taking information that is specializing the contributor
relationship/property and sticking it in a new object with the value.

The range (value) of the contributor property is thus either a
Person/Agent, or a Relationship object.
It is difficult to come up with a name for this combined type, which is
often a sign of a modeling issue.

A better way to deal with this situation is to define a sub property of
contributor that denotes the specific relationship. If one wishes to record
extra information about the property, then you can add assertions to the
property URI (for example, a natural language description).

Simon

On Jan 27, 2014 3:58 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> so let's go back to the original example from the MARC document, which is
what I'm curious about, and take the easier example. The document gives two
possible BIBFRAME fragments:
>
> #1
>
> work1  a  bf:Work;
>             bf:contributor  <URI for illustrator's name>.
>
> #2
>
> work1 a bf:Work
>             bf:contributor   relationship1.
> relationship1  a  bf:Related;
>             bf:relationshipID  id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ill;
>             bf:identifier  <URI for illustrator's name>.
>
>
> I have no problem with #1. #2 puzzles me, though. In this case,
"relationship1" is probably a blank node, so I"m going to remove the
semantics from that:
>
> work1 a bf:Work ;
>             bf:contributor   _b123.
> _b123  a  bf:Related;
>
>             bf:relationshipID  id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ill;
>             bf:identifier  <URI for illustrator's name>.
>
> I'm still trying to understand what this might mean.  I don't find
bf:Related defined (there is a class Relationship that appears with
http://bibframe.org/vocab/Related.html). But the blank node should have the
semantics of the object of bf:contributor. To say that the object of
bf:contributor is a relationship doesn't seem right, especially when the
node contains an Agent and a Relationship (I'm assuming that relationshipID
is a property of class Relationship). How does this result in the statement:
>
>     work1 has illustrator <URI for illustrator>  [and NOT for
illustrator's name, btw]
>
> Instead, it seems to say:
>
>     work1 has a contributor and the contributor is a relationship between
"ill" and "<URI for illustrator>".
>
> In other words, I don't see how this states that the <URI for
illustrator> has relationship "ill" with work1.
>
> I hope someone else sees it clearly.
>
> kc
>
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet