Print

Print


Although the question was addressed to Rob Sanderson, I'm going to take the liberty of opining:

Let's invent a local scheme:

local:ScientificDataSetClassification rdfs:subClassOf bf:Classification .

local:EnvironmentalScienceDataSet a skos:Concept ;
   skos:inScheme local:ScientificDataSetClassification .

local:PhysicsDataSet a skos:Concept ;
   skos:inScheme local:ScientificDataSetClassification .

and so forth. With that published, we can use it in Linked Data. Kevin Ford made the point in another thread that it's often a good practice to use local URIs for things about which you want to make assertions, but which you don't "own" yourself. Here's an example of why. If Bibframe were to adopt and support a new bf:DataSetClassification corresponding to the above, we could switch over to using it, and we could republish the RDF with the first statement replaced:

local:ScientificDataSetClassification owl:sameAs bf:DataSetClassification .

but we wouldn't have to completely rework all of our metadata to respond to a shift in Bibframe. From my perspective, the move here is to shift the evolution of such entities (classification schemes and identifiers are good examples) out of our metadata and into the community that supports it, while at the same time reaping the benefits that come with having identifiers and not labels (literals) as values in our metadata. When anyone can publish a new classification scheme (for example) without disrupting other people using Bibframe, space is opened up for that kind of evolution in a healthy way, without losing the benefits of a controlled process for the evolution of core ideas (which, in this example, would be the generic notion of a classification scheme). (For example, if I worked at a small public library that couldn't care less about scientific data sets, I'm not called upon at any point in the above-imagined process to do anything to my metadata.) At the same time, the shared model grows no more than is really needed.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:47 PM, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Rob,
>  
> Well, we seem to have a list of a handful of the big classification schemes (in the current bibliocentric world), but nothing from China or from some new data format or wherever else; what do we do with their schemes when we express their data in our systems, before they become so generally accepted in BIBFRAME that they get their own? How do we express a local classification scheme?
>  
> Nate
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Deproliferation of Predicates
>  
>  
> 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
>