Print

Print


Karen is quite correct to note that the connection between a work and a
creator is most naturally expressed as a property.

For the contribution relators with preexisting URIs, all that is needed is
to assert owl axioms declaring them to be properties of the appropriate
kind.

Using annotations instead of properties in this case should be very
strongly motivated.

Karen's annotation turtle is upside down* ( there is no subject for the
property to which the blank node is attached).

Also, a well defined ontology should entail the class of the illustrator,
so there might not be a need to specify the "... a foaf:Person" triple.

Simon
* it's turtles all the way up
On Jan 26, 2014 11:10 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> On 1/25/14, 8:42 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>  Jörg, thanks. One thing, though, that makes me cautious about using
> annotations is that unless you supply a type for body and target, you have
> no idea what kinds of things are annotated and are annotating. In fact, in
> the below, I would want to do something like (see inline):
>
>
>   @prefix oa: <http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/> .
>  @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/> .
>  @prefix lcrel: <http://id.loc.goc/vocabulary/relators/> .
> @prefix lobid: <http://lobid.org/organisation/> .
> @prefix xbib: <http://xbib.org/vocab/example/> .
>
>  <http://id.loc.goc/vocabulary/relators/ill> rdfs:label "illustrated
> by"@en .
>
>  xbib:work1 a xbib:Work;
>     lcrel:ill [
>         a xbib:Illustrator;
>         xbib:identifier <URI for illustrator's name>
>     ] ;
>
>
> As a property, not an annotation:
>
>   xbib:work1 a xbib:Work;
>       xbib:ill <URI> .
>   <URI> a foaf:Person .
>
> then as triples (which is the only way I can check what I've done)
>
> xbibwork1 rdf:type xbib:Work .
> xbibwork1 xbib:ill <URI> .
> <URI> rdf:type foaf:Person .
>
> As an annotation:
>
>     xbib:annotation [
>         a oa:Annotation;
>         oa:hasBody xbib:work1;
>
>         oa:hasTarget lcrel:ill;
> oa:annotated "2014-01-25T16:35:00Z"^^
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime><http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime>;
>        oa:annotator lobid:DE-605#joerg;
>         oa:motivatedBy oa:identifying
>   ] .
>   xbib:work1 a dctypes:?? .
>   lcrel:ill a foaf:Person .
>
> triples:
>
> xbib:annotation rdf:type oa:Annotation .
> xbib:annotation oa:hasBody xbib:work1 .
> xbib:annotation oa:hasTarget lcred:ill .
> xbib:annotation oa:annotated "2014-01-25T16:35:00Z"^^
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime><http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime>.
> xbib:annotation oa:annotator lobid:DE-605#joerg .
> xbib:annotation oa:motivatedBy oa:identifying .
>
> xbib:work1 rdf:type dctype:?? .
> lcrel:ill rdf:type foaf:Person .
>
> Looking at this, I'm just not sure this fits into the annotation model.
> The "illustrated by" is not a thing (and annotations are relations between
> two things) -- it is a property.
>
> I also have a hard time deciding how I should type the bibliographic
> record as a target - it's not the book or the CD or the map, it's a
> metadata record representing those. However, most bodies will be annotating
> the represented content, not the metadata record. So, in terms of typing,
> do we 1) refer to the underlying expression ("text" "sound") (this is what
> the dctypes are best for) 2) the package ("book" "CD") 3) the bibliographic
> entity ("frbr:Work" "BIBFRAME:Work")?
>
> kc
>
>     xbib:annotation [
>  a oa:Annotation;
>         oa:hasBody xbib:work1;
>         oa:hasTarget lcrel:ill;
>  oa:annotated "2014-01-25T16:35:00Z"^^<
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime> ;
>  oa:annotator lobid:DE-605#joerg;
>          oa:motivatedBy oa:identifying
>   ] .
>
>  Jörg
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  The following is from a discussion paper [1] being presented at the MARC
>> Advisory Committee at ALA. It has information about BIBFRAME treatment of
>> relators (MARC relators [2] and RDA/FRBR entity relationships [3]) that I
>> have not yet seen on the BIBFRAME site, so I thought it might be of
>> interest:
>>
>>  5. BIBFRAME DISCUSSION
>>
>> In BIBFRAME these relationships are handled as follows.  The
>> illustrations shown below use the RDF turtle notation. (See Introduction
>> to Turtle used in MAC Papers <http://loc.gov/marc/mac/turtle4mac.html>.)
>>
>> In the BIBFRAME vocabulary the relationships between cataloging resources
>> and between cataloging resources and names (commonly called roles or
>> relators) such as those in Appendices J and I respectively are accommodated
>> by sets of properties with the "escape" to designate any relationship not
>> specifically provided.  This provides flexibility and encourages efficiency
>> in expressing the relationships via URIs for the descriptions of the
>> related resources where possible.
>>
>> For the cataloging resource relationships the set goes from the most
>> general, relatedResource, to the general (which are essentially the high
>> level relationship categories in the RDA Appendix J (e.g., equivalent,
>> accompanies, precedes, etc.) to a number of specific relationships (series,
>> translation, dataSource, supplement, etc.).  The latter includes the
>> specific supersedes and precedes sub relationships used by the ISSN
>> system.  Not all of the 300+ and their reciprocals are expressed as
>> properties.  All of the included properties efficiently link directly to
>> the URI of the description of the related resource.  If a more specific
>> relationship is needed, then the relationship can be expressed in URI or
>> literal form, and the link to the description of the related resource can
>> be specified via the Related class.
>>
>> work1  a  bf:Work;
>>             bf:accompanies  <work2 URI>.
>>
>> work1 a bf:Work
>>             bf:accompanies   relationship1.
>> relationship1  a  bf:Related;
>>             bf:relationship  "augmented by catalogue";
>>             bf:identifier  <work2 URI>.
>>
>> The relationships between cataloging resources and names as RDA list in
>> Appendix J and the one aligned with it in MARC that also provides codes are
>> similarly expressed as properties with a very general property relatedAgent
>> and three general properties, agent, creator, and contributor, with
>> additional relationships expressed in literal or URI form as above.
>>
>> work1  a  bf:Work;
>>             bf:contributor  <URI for illustrator's name>.
>>
>> 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'm assuming that the "relationship1" in these examples is a blank node,
>> although it isn't indicated as such. I'm not clear on how one knows the
>> nature of the value of bf:identifier, particularly when the relationship is
>> a literal string. Perhaps I'm overlooking something?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> [1] http://loc.gov/marc/mac/2014/2014-dp04.html
>> [2] http://loc.gov/marc/relators/
>> and
>> http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators.html
>> [3] Not having access to the RDA toolkit, I guess the best other source
>> for these is the registry recently announced:
>> http://www.rdaregistry.info/
>>
>> --
>> Karen [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>
> --
> Karen [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>