Print

Print


On 1/27/14, 8:31 AM, Simon Spero wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Could you send a corrected example? Thanks.
>
> Here's a simple example, since I am using the tablet from the bed and 
> there is a 70lb hound dog asleep on my foot:-)
>
> :Fred a :Weasel;
>      :annotation [
>          :hasBody :FredsBody.
>      ].
>

Ah, ok. In fact OA annotations purposely do NOT use blank nodes, and the 
original examples weren't "annotations" in the OA sense. 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