[log in to unmask]"
It is fairly simple to provide a semantics for OWL
that allow for failure to prove that something is true to be
grounds for inferring that it is false.
This kind of semantics is commonly referred to as
Negation As/By Failure (NAF).
One widely available reasoner that supports this kind
of semantics is TrOWL <http://trowl.eu> -
A commercial system that use OWL with NAF semantics
for validation is stardog, which is a SPARQL database from
Clark & Parsia - http://docs.stardog.com/icv/
Cyc supports the assertion of completeness (either
that the the complete extent of a predicate is inferable , or
more strongly, that the complete extent has been asserted. This
completeness information can be used as an argument against
something, which can be used to reach a definitive conclusion if
NAF is enabled when inferencing.
It is also possible to explicitly close the world by
asserting disjointUnion axioms before validation, but direct
support is better.
Another bit of
information for anyone interested: The BIBFRAME profiles follow
the Description Set Profile developed by the Dublin Core
Community in 2008 . The latter continues to be a working
draft, and therefore doesn't have final status. Notably, the DSP
was developed as a design for an XML schema. (And an XSD was
created but apparently never tested.) The DSP essentially
provides a record structure that can be applied to RDF data. It
includes a top "description template" that then contains (in an
XML hierarchical sense) descriptions (generally of entities);
descriptions in turn define the statements or elements that will
describe the entities.
I looked again at the DSP and indeed it does not define an
identifier for statement descriptions, similar to the lack of an
identifier for the BIBFRAME property template. This is viable in
an XML structure, although I personally would opt to provide an
identifier for the set of constraints that relate to the
property, even in an XML structure. In fact, in the pseudo-code
examples that I created for the DC guidelines document for
Application Profiles , I did include such an identifier.
Outside of the structure confines of XML, the lack of an
identifier may not be viable.
One question that the Dublin Core RDF AP group  will
investigate is whether a one can define a Profile using RDF, or
if, because of the semantics of RDF, validation must take place
outside of the RDF definitions. Shape Expressions (soon to be
known as Data Shapes) uses something resembling RegEx, and
SPIN is based on SPARQL, which is a query language. These
latter two are taking place within the W3C community, and the
Dublin Core work will coordinate with them. The variety of
approaches, to me, is evidence of the difficulty of effecting
common data processing validation on the semantics of RDF, but
it is also evident that there is a growing need to find a
On 7/1/14, 8:38 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
Could I bring up another question? I note that the property
template uses the property URI as its identifier. I believe
that this may be problematic, as the property URI is then
identifying two different things: a property, and a graph that
exists in a particular profile context. This could cause
confusion in an environment where a single property may be
used in more than one profile with different attributes.
As an example, I could have two profiles, one of which has
bf:title as mandatory, the other does not. As there are no
"records" in RDF, my set of triples would have:
A resource template would include <bf:title> in its
array of property templates. Therefore, wouldn't bf:title be
both true and false whenever it is used in a profile?
On 7/1/14, 2:07 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
Late thanks for your comments and clarifications. My
Yes, it does. If the resource label is mainly for UI
purposes, perhaps it could be a solution to change
"resourceLabel" to "uiLabel" or something similar.
First of all thank you for your work on the BIBFRAME
Profiles. I think the
notion of profiles will be increasingly important in the
perhaps particularly for an exchange format like
BIBFRAME that is not tied
a specific cataloguing code. I see some overlap with the
work being done
RDF application profiles so I copy the DCMI Architecture
Having studied the document on BIBFRAME Profiles  I
questions and hope that someone can shed some light
§2.2 Resource Template
How do the resourceURI and the resourceLabel relate to
each other? My
understanding was that the resourceLabel is the label of
available at the resourceURI (and thus available by
resourceURI). In the example (Fig 2.2a), however, there
Book” and the resourceURI http://bibframe.org/vocab/Text
(which is not a
book). Can you please expand a bit on this in the
-- When Bibframe Profiles are used as cataloging
templates, which is how
they are used presently but with additional future uses to
(there has been some "validation" talk, but very little
and very inconclusive),
it is possible to alter the "labels" of classes/resources
and properties for
specific user communities. For example, with a Bibframe
Profile, you could
use the label "Number of pages" with the property
bf:extent, which, in the
vocabulary, has a "Extent" as its label. For the specific
a book, "Number of pages" is more descriptive about what
is expected to be
entered into the field versus "Extent." So, in the
example above, "bf:Text,"
which has a label of "Text" in the vocabulary, would
display to the user as
"Book" in the editor, where Bibframe Profiles act as
Does this help clarify the idea a little?
OK. For interoperability, pre-defined datatypes should of
course be preferred. Could you add such a recommendation to
§2.5 Value datatype
Is there a reason not to use the XML schema datatypes,
and to define RDF/OWL datatypes (subclass of
rdfs:Datatype and OWL
Restrictions) when you need new ones? In Figure 2.5, you
-- Actually, "defaultURI" could be
if you wanted it to be. "xsd" is
just a namespace prefix after all. Anyways, Eric and all
could provide more
details about what was intended but the text indicates
that the ISO8601 date
would be "a variation on the ISO 8601 date standard,"
which is why, I
presume, xsd:date was not used.
OK, we should try and see what happens...
-- Just to be clear: Serialization here refers to
serialization of a Bibframe
Is there a reason to restrict the available
serialisations? In general you could
say that any existing (RDFXML, Turtle, N-Triples,
JSON-LD, …) or future RDF
serialization is acceptable in BIBFRAME? And yes,
examples please in Turtle.
Profile, not Bibframe resource data itself. Correct, if
Bibframe Profiles were
expressed inTurtle then presumably any RDF serialization
would also be
viable. Personally, I think pushing the Profile spec into
Turtle would result in
some unwieldy RDF, but I'd have to see it to know.
§6.1 Default BIBFRAME Profile
Here I don’t understand what you mean by saying “Human
for the display are extracted from the RDF schema
associated with the class
identifiers”. Which “class identifiers” do you refer to?
And: If you can
the label by dereferencing a URI, why repeat it in the
-- The answer here is more or less the same as given in
response to your
comment about section 2.2 above.
The "class identifiers" are the
OK, got it. And I admit that I cannot come up with something
better than "class identifiers". We'd have to work on that.
resourceURIs and propertyURIs, which refer to classes and
defined in the Bibframe vocabulary. We can probably come
up with a better
way to refer to these instead of using "class
identifiers," which is to say that I
see the confusion. The "human readable labels" are the
values you see in
that example associated with the resourceLabel and
properties. Looking at the example, however,
"resourceLabel: Book" should
really be resourceLabel: Text." The idea was to use the
same labels in the
profile as used in the vocabulary, but - as with my
comment above - it is a
profile creator's choice to use whichever label he or she
wants to use for a
resource or property in a Profile. For example, since the
"author" property is
repeatable, the Profile label could be "Author(s)" instead
of the singular
"Author," which /is/ the property's actual label, so that
the cataloger would
know more than one is permissible. It’s a feature.
Yes, it's a minor point, but it's helpful since it shows (at
least technically savvy readers) that it's really just an
example and doesn't refer to any existing data.
In the example you use the domain name “examplelib.org”. In order to
sure that you do not (by accident) use a domain name
actually used by
-- OK, but can we agree this is a pretty minor point? :)
It's used twice, both as
someone, it would be better to use the domains example.com or
example.org or their subdomains,
e. g. library.example.org.
part of a dummy email address within a note field, not as
part of a
§6.2 RDA as a BIBFRAME Profile
-- Yes, we'll have to get the graphic updated.
Shouldn’t the frbr:Item map to bf:HeldItem instead of to
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net