Print

Print


In a open world, I can publish my own local classification scheme (or whatever odd scheme I happen to be using {grin}) with an indication of the appropriate relationship:

http://myinstitution.org/ontology/WeirdClassification rdfs:subClassOf bf:Classification .

published at http://myinstitution.org/ontology/WeirdClassification.

Since I used an HTTP URI, then when someone receives Bibframe using my URI, they can dereference it, discover my RDF, and act appropriately. Now, I am assuming a certain capability for inference in this example, but since we are specifically talking about how to _extend_ Bibframe, I don't think that's as inappropriate as it might be in other circumstances.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> Hi Nate,
> 
> -------------------------------------
> 
> However, even better given the query optimization scenario would be:
> 
>     _:x bf:classification [ a bf:NlmClassification ; value "123" ]
> 
> ------------------------------------- 
> 
> Haven’t you gone here from deproliferating properties to proliferating classes?  If we did this, wouldn’t we also have to have these classes:
> 
> 
> I have, yes :) But at the same time, getting rid of the string literals in scheme, and indeed, the scheme property all together.  So a net reduction in the model, and a net increase in simplicity and ease of querying.
> 
> and you’d still probably need the generic bf:Classification and a way to say what scheme it represents, as we develop or accept new mechanisms to organize new types of material that don’t rise yet to the level of having their own class?
> 
> 
> I don't follow that, I'm afraid. Why wouldn't we (the community) give new Classification types their own subclass?
> 
> Rob
>