Print

Print


> In fact relying on bf:hasInstance is pretty impractical in the open, because a system would have to know all the places to query that may have new Instances that point to them, and the bf:Work would become prohibitively large.

It's not generally preferred even in a closed system, because it requires a transaction across two resources to create an instance, whereas bf:instanceOf does not.

---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Jul 29, 2014, at 9:44 AM, "Trail, Nate" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Rob,
> Taking a small snip from your email below:
>  
> * Multiplied by two ways to get from Work to Instance (bf:hasInstance, bf:instanceOf)
>  
> I would say “two ways to get _between_ Work and Instance”; only bf:hasInstance goes from Work to Instance. Nevertheless…
>  
> Are you saying that because there are 2 links, one in each direction, that it unnecessarily overly complicates the ways of querying between resources?
>  
> In regular cataloging workflow, we believe most will use:
> bf:Instance bf:instanceOf bfWork;
> and more rarely,
> bf:Work bf:hasInstance bf:Work,
> but didn’t want to preclude doing it that way.
>  
> For  example, a movie comes out and the bf:Work and bf:Instance are created, and then subsequent DVD and other formats come out, which will mean more Instances pointing back to the original Work.
> In fact relying on bf:hasInstance is pretty impractical in the open, because a system would have to know all the places to query that may have new Instances that point to them, and the bf:Work would become prohibitively large.
>  
> Thanks for any comments, Nate
>  
>  
> -----------------------------------------
> Nate Trail
> LS/TECH/NDMSO
> LA308, Mail Stop 4402
> Library of Congress
> Washington DC 20540
>  
>  
>  
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 6:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] bf:Title queries from use cases
>  
>  
> Hi Karen,
>  
> Yes, the query in the UC doc is one of the many, many possible ways to encode a title using the current vocabulary.
>  
> There is, in English rather than SPARQL:
>  
> * Work with bf:title ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/title.html )
> * Instance with bf:title
> * Work with bf:titleStatement ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/titleStatement.html )
> * Instance with bf:titleStatement
> * Work with bf:label ( http://bibframe.org/vocab/label.html ) N.B. look at the example here
> * Instance with bf:label
> * Work with bf:workTitle of a bf:Title
> * Instance with bf:instanceTitle of a bf:Title
> * Work with bf:titleVariation of a bf:Title 
> * Instance with bf:titleVariation of a bf:Title 
> * Instance with bf:abbreviatedTitle of a bf:Title
> * Instance with bf:keyTitle of a bf:Title 
>  
> * Multiplied by two ways to get from Work to Instance (bf:hasInstance, bf:instanceOf)
>  
> * Multiplied by the matrix of title-string-holding attributes of bf:Title:
>   * bf:Title uses bf:titleValue alone
>   * bf:Title uses bf:titleValue and bf:subtitle
>   * ...plus bf:partTitle, bf:partNumber, bf:titleAttribute, bf:titleQualifier 
>   * bf:label could also be used instead of bf:titleValue
>  
> And this without translation, transliteration or the other complexities introduced in the thread's discussion.
>  
> Notes:
>  
> * Presumably one could have a HeldItem/HeldMaterial with a title different from its Instance, if someone physically modified a particular copy.  This isn't in the model at the moment, but thinking in an archival way rather than library way I don't see why not.  I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
>  
> Rob
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Because I have trouble thinking about these things in the abstract, I made a small file with all of the BF properties that have the domain of bf:Title:
> 
> http://kcoyle.net/temp/BFtitle.ttl
> 
> That shows me that all of the properties have the range rdfs:literal.
> 
> Note that the bf:title property is not among these -- it is defined as:
> 
> <http://bibframe.org/vocab/title>
>     a rdf:Property ;
>     rdfs:comment "Word, character, or group of words and/or characters that is a name given to a resource" ;
>     rdfs:label "Title" ;
>     rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
> 
> Because rdfs:domain is not defined, it defaults to rdf:Resource. In the recent examples that I have seen, the literal bf:title repeats the literal values associated with the title types that take URI values (fragments below):
> 
>     bf:title "The adventures of Tom Sawyer", "adventures of Tom Sawyer"@x-bf-sortable ;
>     bf:workTitle <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7> ;
>     a bf:Text, bf:Work .
> ...
> <http://bibframe.org/resources/Ahx1405278232/1706459title7>
> 
>     bf:titleValue "The adventures of Tom Sawyer" ;
>     a bf:Title .
> 
> 
> Kevin and Rob, this appears to match the query in the use cases document:
> 
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
> 
> for a simple title search.
> 
> Therefore, is it the case that a full title search would need to include
> 
> 
>   SELECT ?work ?inst ?lib
>   WHERE {
>     ?work bf:title "Phantom Tollbooth"
>     ?inst bf:instanceOf ?work
>     ....
> 
> as well as a query using
> 
>    ?work rdf:type bf:Title
> 
> ?
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/28/14, 2:40 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305