Print

Print


It's not clear to me in what way the scheme outlined would prevent efficient operation. Perhaps you can elaborate?

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 23, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Many institutions have a local adaptation of so e big classification scheme and by your definition are weird. Don't these need to be able to function efficiently?
> 
> Thanks,
> Shlomo
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 23:47, "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
>>