Print

Print


On 7/28/14, 1:53 PM, Kevin Ford wrote:
> I believe Rob is trying to underscore the fact that there are variable 
> ways to record a Work's title (not to mention an Instance's) and, 
> because there are variable ways to do it, the query becomes, well, 
> ridiculous.

Kevin, yes, I agree, although it gets even more ridiculous when the work 
title is a URI, which then must be resolved to a string (except when the 
work title is a string). The question, then, is what is the use case for 
title as URI?
>
>
> While the bf:Title construct exists as an attempt to address /some/ of 
> those less common cases (such as a cataloger assigned titles), it 
> remains problematic because it is hard to square that particular use 
> case with existence of "bf:formDesignation" or "bf:titleAttribute," 
> the definitions of which strongly suggest they are aspects of the 
> Work, not a "title."  Since these properties are associated with a 
> bf:Title resource (and a bf:Title resource is distinct from a Work or 
> Instance), they raise vocabular/modelling questions.  And, because 
> they have corollaries in MARC, they also evoke current MARC-cataloging 
> practice.

I'm not clear on what you mean here by the bf:Title construct. There is 
a bf:Title class, which could help matters in some circumstances, since 
one can search using rdf:type and therefore retrieve all predicates that 
are sub-classes of bf:Title. At that point, however, the next step in 
the SPARQL query would need to be the same for all titles to work 
easily. Not knowing up front if the title will be a URI or a string 
could make a difference in formulating a query.

>
> So, I think these last questions are the first ones we need to find 
> agreement on.
>
> 1) Is a title an attribute or property of a Work or Instance?  Do you 
> think of a "title" as synonymous with a Work (or Instance), that is, 
> the thing you are describing?
>
>     OR
>
> 2) Is a title a type of Thing unto itself, one that can have its own 
> identifier, and is related to but otherwise distinct from the Work or 
> Instance you are describing? It is something that is associated with a 
> Work but is not necessarily a property or attribute of the Work?  
> Though this is not only way to look at this, one wants to ask: Are 
> titles re-usable?

It seems to me that the question is a bit different (or perhaps there is 
yet another question) which is:

3) Do we need say things about the title? If so, it must be a "thing" 
with a URI. If not, then it can be a literal string.

And an even bigger question:

4) Is there any of our data that can be a literal string, or must there 
always be the option of saying something about the data itself? If so, 
then our vocabulary becomes quite complex, and that will be evident in 
the searches that can be run against it.

I wonder if we aren't imposing our closed world needs (e.g. the innards 
of library systems, and of the library-to-library catalog data exchange) 
with what will instead work best in a more open environment. If I wish 
to link my authors or titles with, say, Wikipedia, what are my "data 
about data" needs? Are they as detailed as the ones I would use to make 
decisions about copy cataloging?

kc

>
> I don't think there are any right or wrong answers to the above 
> questions.  I'm interested in gaining a better understanding where 
> everyone is coming from, which I hope will then be an indicator about 
> which way to take this thread.  And I certainly do not see the above 
> as precluding one of the two possibilities as they currently exist, 
> nor do I find this approach to be a replacement for use cases.  I'm 
> just trying to determine if there is an underlying point-of-view issue 
> here.
>
> [ For my answer: I see it as (1).  I view titles as attributes or 
> properties of Works and Instances, not things unto themselves.]
>
> Yours,
> Kevin
>
> [1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=21183
> [2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1407&L=bibframe&T=0&P=22684
>
>
>
>
> On 07/28/2014 01:38 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Rob, I'm not sure that the use cases document is up to date with the
>> current state of BF. As I stated before, here is an actual title "entry"
>> from a recently converted MARC->BF:
>>
>>
>>    bf:instanceTitle
>> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>>
>> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title33>
>>
>>      bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
>>
>>      a bf:Title .
>>
>> bf:title exists, as do bf:titleVariation, bf:titleType, and
>> bf:titleStatement. I believe that these would change the SPARQL query.
>> If you'd like, I can create a small test set.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 7/28/14, 10:26 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>> (Was alleys, before that titles)
>>>
>>> From the use cases document:
>>>
>>>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>>>   WHERE {
>>>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>>>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>>>     ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this needs to be something like...
>>>
>>>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>>>   WHERE {
>>>       { ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>>     UNION
>>>       { ?work bf:titleStatement "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>>     UNION
>>>       { ?work bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>>     UNION
>>>       {
>>>          { ?work bf:workTitle ?title }
>>>         UNION
>>>          { ?work bf:titleVariation ?title }
>>>        ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>>     UNION
>>>       {
>>>          {  ?work bf:hasInstance ?inst }
>>>        UNION
>>>          { ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work}
>>>        UNION
>>>         { ?inst bf:label "Phantom Tollbooth" }
>>>        UNION
>>>         {
>>>           {  ?inst bf:instanceTitle ?title }
>>>            UNION
>>>            { ?inst bf:titleVariation ?title }
>>>          ?title bf:titleValue "Phantom Tollbooth"
>>>       }
>>>     ...
>>>
>>> Yes? :(
>>>
>>> And this is a simple case without punctuation, sub-titles, etc.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:53 AM, [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I have had that feeling all through these discussions. At:
>>>
>>>     http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-usecases
>>>
>>>     only six out of fifteen use cases mention library patrons (by my
>>>     count), so I am inclined to think that the answer to that second
>>>     question may in fact be: library catalogers and their colleagues.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet