A. and others

You are correct that the "constrained" properties are given some sort of
primary status. The RDF properties represent the attributes (called
"elements" in RDA - the intended audience differs from that of RDF) and
relationships of the entities that RDA is intended to be about. Each RDA
entity is based on an entity in the FRBR and FRAD models. The RDA
instructions are intended to be used to derive values for the attributes and
relationships of instances of these entities, and they are arranged to
reflect this. The instructions for each RDA element and relationship always
indicate the entity to which they should be applied.

The "published" RDF element set for RDA, available from the RDA Registry at, represents this using RDFS semantics, and
specifically those of rdfs:domain, rdfs:range, and rdfs:subPropertyOf.

The JSC intends the RDA Registry to assist the development of applications
that produce metadata that is well-formed according to the <indecs> Metadata
Framework and the DCMI Abstract Model. This is laid out in the RDA Element
Analysis, available at
(the JSC acknowledges that this document needs review and update and has
tasked the JSC Technical Working Group to so do). The RDFS semantics are
intended to support the publication and consumption of RDF datasets that
purport to be "RDA".

The JSC intends the unconstrained properties to be used by applications that
wish to dumb-down RDA datasets by destroying the information specific to
RDA/FRBR entities.

The JSC also intends the unconstrained properties to assist the development
of applications that publish and consume RDF datasets derived from sources
using instructions related to RDA, such as AACR2 and ISBD. The JSC liaises
closely with the ISBD Review Group to improve the functional
interoperability of linked data created using either the ISBD and RDA
instructions. For further information see Documents shared between the JSC
and the ISBD Review Group, available at

The unconstrained properties are therefore derived from the "constrained"
properties. Karen pointed out that this is not one-2-one, particularly for
properties representing relationships that are distinguished only by
FRBR/FRAD entity. Note also that the definitions replace, where possible,
references to specific entities with the more generic "resource" and
"agent". This is done mechanically, and occasionally leads to
less-than-clear results which help the JSC to review the original
definitions for clarity.

As Karen said, the original attempt by the DCMI/RDA Task Group to develop
RDF representations of RDA elements followed the approach of deriving
"constrained" properties by adding domains and ranges to "unconstrained"
properties. The JSC was not comfortable with the results, and never changed
their status from "New-Proposed". They are now deprecated.

The RDA Toolkit Technical Committee is developing documentation to support
the JSC's intentions; see the blog post RDA Toolkit Technical Committee
formed, at

I hope this helps. For a personal view, see RDA and the semantic web,
available at and I'm happy to try
to answer any questions :-)



Gordon Dunsire
Chair, Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
([log in to unmask])

-----Original Message-----
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 09 November 2014 15:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] RDA and Bibframe vocabs vs. models Was: [BIBFRAME]
Closed and Open Assumptions

I notice that the RDA constrained properties aren't RDFS subproperties of
the unconstrained properties, although they have a clear relationship, or at
least that's what seems to be shown here:

From reading this:

it seems that the constrained properties were given a sort of primary
status, and the unconstrained properties developed therefrom by elision. It
would have seemed more natural to me to start with the unconstrained
properties and develop the connections to FRBR and FRAD from there. I'm sure
there were good reasons to go the other way, but the only idea I could turn
up with Google searching is that FRBR and FRAD themselves were considered
primary and any other model (or the use of RDA without committing to a
model) wasn't "on the table". Is that understanding correct, or perhaps
someone more familiar with RDA could comment?

I'm asking because the same question comes up with Bibframe. If
unconstrained Bibframe properties were to be published, would they be only
weakly related to the constrained properties, or is Bibframe willing to be
"agnostic" about the models with which it is used? This seems to me to be
related to Karen Coyle's comments about the kinds of GLAM communities that
might or might not be interested in Bibframe, depending on the ontological
commitments that come with it.

A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library

On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The RDA properties defined in the Open Metadata Registry include both
constrained and unconstrained versions (cf. for the
latter).  Does BIBFRAME need something similar--constrained declarations for
prescriptive profiles and when intended use cases involve inferencing, and
unconstrained declarations for easy extensibility?  
> Stephen
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> My point has not changed at all. It has always been that requiring
inference in Bibframe applications would be a mistake. I'm not sure how you
understood that to mean anything about "requiring explicit types". Again,
the question about validation is interesting, but not in any way to my
point. Whether or not validation is brought into play in a given
application, the Bibframe vocabulary itself should use good RDF practices.
> I agree that use cases would be helpful here, but there seems to me to be
a more fundamental problem; that Bibframe is not entirely sure about who its
users actually are. The Bibframe site itself has "In addition to being a
replacement for MARC, BIBFRAME serves as a general model for expressing and
connecting bibliographic data." I would take this to mean that Bibframe is
essentially an inward-facing project of the cataloging community, because by
and large, most consumers of bibliographic data do not have much interest
themselves in expressing bibliographic data in RDF. In that case, there is
little point in worrying about how to make good Linked Data. Bibframe could
use whatever the cataloging community likes of the Semantic Web technologies
and ignore what doesn't seem comfortable, because the only people who will
use it are catalogers and library technologists (much like MARC, today).
> If, on the other hand, it is an intention of the project to publish
bibliographic data into the wider Web, as well as to serve as a replacement
for MARC, it seems to me that there will always be a tension at play, and
not a healthy or creative tension. After a few months of participating in
the discussion on this list, I'm brought to question very strongly whether
it is in fact possible to develop a technology that will fulfill both goals
in a reasonable way.
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > I agree. I think your point has changed somewhat, but I like this
approach better. So the insistence on requiring explicit types has now
become a recommendation that relying on types for application functionality
is likely to incur costs because you cannot count on the presence of
explicit types.  I think this is sensible, and it's a good point to arrive
at through this discussion. It's worth an analysis, although once again that
can only be compared to use cases, which we do not have enough of.
> >
> > One thing that makes me nervous about the RDF validation discussion
taking place at W3C is that many of the technologies being considered base
their validation triggers on types/classes in the instance data. This is
fine if you have them, but it does mean that you need to design ontology to
include the types that you need for validation. That is a different reason
to use types than the standard RDF/RDFS/OWL purposes.
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> > On 11/7/14 9:33 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>> If you have reason to make use of data that does not, and the type
makes a difference to your application, you will have to use inferencing.
> >> This is exactly my point. The question is whether the type makes a
> >>
> >> If Bibframe makes a condition on applications which process it that
types makes a difference to the successful operation of the application,
then either in every case where that kind of difference occurs, it can only
be predicated on the appearance of an explicit type, or inferencing is
required in the application. Therefore, Bibframe should _not_ make that
condition for the most basic kind of operation. That means that for any set
of Bibframe triples, there should be a sensible interpretation into the
bibliographical universe that Bibframe purports to describe, _whether or not
explicit types are present, and whether or not inferencing is available_. In
some cases, it may be possible for Bibframe applications to do a _better_
interpretation if types are present or can be inferred, but it should never
be the case that an application can make no sense or can only offer a
bizarre or nonsensical interpretation of some Bibframe triples without
typing information.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> A. Soroka
> >> The University of Virginia Library
> >>
> >> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/7/14 8:29 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>>> That is very interesting, but it is not at all to the point I was
> >>>>
> >>>> The issue is not between CWA and OWA. It is whether or not an
application consuming Bibframe triples will be able to operate correctly
over them without using RDFS inferencing. It is not possible to "require"
any given set of triples in the world, Bibframe aside, to have explicit
typing, at least not in any currently widely-understood way. On the other
hand, if it is not possible to interpret a set of Bibframe-using triples
into a meaningful bibliographic universe without inferencing, then you
_have_ required the presence of inferencing _in applications_. There is an
enormous difference between requiring some condition on some set of triples
(which is the interest of the groups you mention below) and requiring a
particular capability from applications dealing with a particular kind of
data, which is what this discussion was about.
> >>> I still think you are talking closed world. No one, definitely not I,
have said that one should ban the use of explicit types. But in the open
world you cannot count on everyone using explicit types. If you operate in
the open world, relying on explicitly defined types is going to be
problematic. So I don't see what your point is. Some data (BIBFRAME and
others) will have explicit type declarations. Other data will not. If you
have reason to make use of data that does not, and the type makes a
difference to your application, you will have to use inferencing. To me,
these are just facts.
> >>>
> >>> kc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> A. Soroka
> >>>> The University of Virginia Library
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11/7/14 4:55 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>>>>>> Adding the rdf:type in instance data is convenient for data
consumers, and that's fine; however note that it is a convenience, not a
> >>>>>> I disagree. It is in fact very much a requirement if you would like
to avoid requiring inferencing regimes for Bibframe.
> >>>>> I'm getting a hint of closed-world assumption in some of this
discussion. Most likely, the future library system software that
hypothetically uses BIBFRAME or some other RDF ontology may use explicit
typing to make those systems more efficient. And if we all contribute to
some RDF/OCLC of the future, it may do the same. But in the open world of
LOD that is just one giant graph, anyone can use BIBFRAME properties however
they wish. (Anyone can say Anything about Anything). In that open world you
cannot "require" anything beyond what you define in your ontology, which
comes along not as constraints but as semantic baggage (hopefully useful
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm fine with anticipating a bibliographic closed world since it
seems likely to happen, for practical reasons. If that's what we're
addressing here, though, we should be clear about it, and separate the
closed-world discussion from the open-world one.  We should also then talk
about whether that closed-world BIBFRAME that is being designed is also what
will be opened to the LOD world, and how it will play in that world. My gut
feeling is that use cases and requirements for that closed world could be
quite different from those of the open world. So another set of use cases
is: what do we anticipate today as uses for bibliographic data in the open
world? I'd expect a lot of linking to diverse data, and trying to identify
the same resource when it appears in different contexts (like connecting
article citations to library holdings).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since RDF/RDFS/OWL do not provide constraints, just open-world 
> >>>>> based inferences, something else is needed to meet the 
> >>>>> requirements of the closed world. This is the topic of a newly 
> >>>>> formed W3C group called "Shapes" [1] and a Dublin Core RDF 
> >>>>> validation group [2]. The existing technologies that address 
> >>>>> this are SPIN, ICV, and Resource Shapes. [2] BIBFRAME can work 
> >>>>> on its own closed world design, perhaps extending the BF 
> >>>>> Profiles, and feel fairly confident that the W3C work will meet 
> >>>>> our needs. If we think it won't we can contribute our own use 
> >>>>> cases to that process. The easiest way to do that is through the 
> >>>>> Dublin Core group,[4] which is then feeding a set of cultural 
> >>>>> heritage use cases to the W3C effort (since that group is 
> >>>>> heavily business based). [Note that the DC group invited 
> >>>>> participation and use case info from BIBFRAME but did not 
> >>>>> receive a response.]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I encourage anyone who can do so the sign up for the relevant
mailing lists (they are open) and contribute to this work. The DC group has
no limitations on who can participate (W3C requires institutional
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>>> [2] 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [3] (not a 
> >>>>> complete explanation, but covers all three) [4] Dc group has a
database of case studies, use cases, and requirements that is still being
worked on:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It also has a testing environment, also in progress, where you can
try out difference scenarios:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Take two applications, one RDFS-inferencing and one not. Give each
a set of triples, one explicitly typed and one not explicitly typed, but
typed correctly under RDFS semantics. For the first set of triples, both
applications will work correctly. For the second, only the inferencing
application will work correctly. If you do not want to require inferencing
in Bibframe applications, you must not assume on it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yet I do not have the impression that we are thinking beyond the
creation of data that, if at all possible, doesn't disrupt our MARC21 past.
In the IT design world, you usually begin with what functions you wish to
perform (use cases, requirements) before determining the structure of your
> >>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Examining:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I find 15 use cases, of which only 5 feature patrons as the user.
The others feature one or more catalogers. Benefits to patrons from this
effort might seem to be somewhat incidental to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> A. Soroka
> >>>>>> The University of Virginia Library
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 8:41 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Simeon, I do not feel that bf data should not have explicit
typing. I simply do not see that as negating the typing provided by the RDFS
function of domain. One does not override or invalidate the other. Adding
the rdf:type in instance data is convenient for data consumers, and that's
fine; however note that it is a convenience, not a requirement. Because we
have multiple ways of providing typing, however, we have to be careful how
the typing in the ontology and the typing in the instance data interact.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you do provide sub-class and sub-property relationships and
domains and ranges, you cannot prevent others from using these for
inferencing -- since that is the defined use for those declarations in your
ontology as per the semantic web standards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All of these arguments, however, are empty without some real use
cases. What is the use case behind the declaration of types? Do we
anticipate particular searches that make use of them? If, as some feel, we
should eschew inferencing, then what *is* the role of the type in our data,
whether explicitly defined or inferred from the ontology? We talk about the
technology as if it exists in some kind of virtual space. This is our data
that we are talking about! What do we intend to do with it? What kind of
searches (of the SPARQL kind) do we anticipate running over this data? How
do we see our data interacting with data from other communities?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This isn't a question to answer in a vacuum. Yet I do not have the
impression that we are thinking beyond the creation of data that, if at all
possible, doesn't disrupt our MARC21 past. In the IT design world, you
usually begin with what functions you wish to perform (use cases,
requirements) before determining the structure of your data. This has been
the case for decades, so it shouldn't be a surprise today. Use cases would
reveal things like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - what do we see as the workflow for data creation?
> >>>>>>> - how will we share data among libraries for copy cataloging?
> >>>>>>> - what uses do we anticipate for a Work (apart from an Instance)?
and for an Instance?
> >>>>>>> - if a user does a search on "Mark Twain" as author, what will the
system provide as a response? A Work? A combined Work/Instance? What would
be optimal?
> >>>>>>> - reiterating Joyce Bell's comments on the editor, what role do
types have in the cataloging function?
> >>>>>>> - what kinds of searches do we want to do over our data?
> >>>>>>> - how will our data interact with the many many millions of
bibliographic descriptions on the web?
> >>>>>>> - if someone does do inferencing over our data, what kinds of
results do we hope that they will obtain?
> >>>>>>> - ... ad infinitum...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Without answers to these questions, I don't see how we can
evaluate BIBFRAME as it exists today. If we don't know what needs it is
responding to, how can we know if it meets any needs at all?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is system development 101, folks. I'm not asking anything out
of the norm.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> kc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/6/14 4:22 PM, Simeon Warner wrote:
> >>>>>>>> To me the key motivations for expressing types explicitly are to
make the data easy and efficient to use. To be able to "get things of type X
meeting condition Y" seems likely to be extremely common need. Why make the
"things of type X" part harder than it need be? If I look through the set of
use cases we came up with for the LD4L project [1], most of them have some
component of "finding things of type X".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It seems a fallacy to argue that, because some external data will
require type inference to be used with bf data, the bf data should not have
explicit typing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think a less important but not insignificant secondary reason
is that it makes the data and model easier to grok. Karen suggests this is
an unhelpful crutch: "My impression is that the primary use of rdf:type is
to make data creators feel like they've created a 'record structure' or
graph based on the type." but I think the additional clarity of intent is
useful (and such redundancy permits various sorts of checks). IMO, one of
the costs/downsides of RDF is complexity/subtlety to understand (see
discussions on this list to make that plain!) and so anything we can do to
make this less of a problem with bf is good.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2 yen,
> >>>>>>>> Simeon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/7/14, 6:33 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/14 12:12 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> bf:workTitle with domain=bf:Work
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> makes these two statements equivalent, although in #2 you 
> >>>>>>>>>>> must first infer the type of :X from the predicate
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X a bf:Work ;
> >>>>>>>>>>>   bf:worktitle [blah] .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X bf:workTitle [blah] .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In both cases, the type of :X is bf:Work.
> >>>>>>>>>> This is predicated on the operation of an inference regime, 
> >>>>>>>>>> presumably RDFS or stronger. It is not true under plain RDF
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's important to notice that assumption when it comes into 
> >>>>>>>>>> play. RDF processing does not normally make it, because it 
> >>>>>>>>>> is expensive, the expense varying with the strength of 
> >>>>>>>>>> inference regime. For a strong regime and for applications 
> >>>>>>>>>> that require processing with strong guarantees about 
> >>>>>>>>>> response time, the expense can be prohibitive. It is 
> >>>>>>>>>> possible to make inference a requirement for Bibframe 
> >>>>>>>>>> applications, but I agree with Rob Sanderson: that would be 
> >>>>>>>>>> a mistake. It should be possible for a machine to process 
> >>>>>>>>>> Bibframe without engaging such machinery, and I say that even
though I believe very strongly that inference is the most important frontier
for these technologies.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>> A. Soroka
> >>>>>>>>>> The University of Virginia Library
> >>>>>>>>> I don't at disagree, although in other venues I am seeing 
> >>>>>>>>> use of inferencing, at least experimentally. But if you *do* 
> >>>>>>>>> include domains and ranges for the properties in your 
> >>>>>>>>> ontology, then they should not return inconsistencies when 
> >>>>>>>>> presented to a reasoner if someone *does* wish to employ 
> >>>>>>>>> inferencing. Having those defined in the ontology means that 
> >>>>>>>>> you support inferencing for those who wish to use it. Otherwise,
why even include domains and ranges in your ontology?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And note that BF uses rdfs and domains and ranges on some
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>   <rdf:Property
> >>>>>>>>>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource=""/>
> >>>>>>>>>     <rdfs:label>Content type</rdfs:label>
> >>>>>>>>>     <rdfs:range
> >>>>>>>>>     <rdfs:comment>Categorization reflecting the fundamental 
> >>>>>>>>> form of communication in which the content is expressed and 
> >>>>>>>>> the human sense through which it is intended to be
> >>>>>>>>>   </rdf:Property>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can't prevent anyone from using reasoning on the data. 
> >>>>>>>>> You still have to get it right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> kc
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/14 8:00 AM, Simon Spero wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2014 10:10 AM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the bf:workTitle were of type bf:Work instead of 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bf:Title, you would get:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <X> rdf:type bf:Work .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <X> bf:workTitle _:aa .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _:aa rdf:type bf:Work .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _:aa bf:titleValue "Here's my title" .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does that clear it up?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ah- now I think I understand-when you are talking about a 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> property being of a certain type, you are talking about 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the range of the property, not the type of the property 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> itself (ie the thing named bf:workTitle. Did it clear up? 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, actually, I'm talking about the domain of properties, 
> >>>>>>>>>>> not the range. The domain of the property asserts 
> >>>>>>>>>>> "instance of class" on the subject of the property 
> >>>>>>>>>>> relation. So
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> bf:workTitle with domain=bf:Work
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> makes these two statements equivalent, although in #2 you 
> >>>>>>>>>>> must first infer the type of :X from the predicate
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X a bf:Work ;
> >>>>>>>>>>>   bf:worktitle [blah] .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X bf:workTitle [blah] .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In both cases, the type of :X is bf:Work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For others, perhaps, note that an subject (":X" here) can 
> >>>>>>>>>>> be of more than one type. So there's nothing wrong with
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X a bf:Work;
> >>>>>>>>>>>    a bf:mapType;
> >>>>>>>>>>>    a bf:digitalObject .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you want to do that. And those types could either be 
> >>>>>>>>>>> explicit ("a
> >>>>>>>>>>> bf:xxx") or inferred. The latter could take advantage of 
> >>>>>>>>>>> something like
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> bf:coordinates domain=mapType bf:digForm 
> >>>>>>>>>>> domain=digitalObject
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And an instance that goes like:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> :X a bf:Work;
> >>>>>>>>>>>    bf:coordinates "blah" ;
> >>>>>>>>>>>    bf:digForm <URI-for-PDF> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's probably not how you'd do forms, but it's the 
> >>>>>>>>>>> example that came to mind.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What this does mean is that you have to be careful what 
> >>>>>>>>>>> domains you define for your properties, because they add 
> >>>>>>>>>>> semantics to your subjects. (The most visible way to test 
> >>>>>>>>>>> this, IMexperience, is by defining classes as disjoint and 
> >>>>>>>>>>> then mixing properties from those classes in a single graph.
Reasoners come back with an "inconsistent"
> >>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, telling you your data doesn't match your 
> >>>>>>>>>>> ontology.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> kc
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the range of workTitle is declared to Work, then the 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> value of the property as well as the subject of the 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> property would also be an instance of bf:Work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is a goal to treat titles as Works in their own right, 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and to be able to have titleValue asserted directly on X?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is a goal to find triples that may be reachable from 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> instances of Work? In that situation, SPARQL 1.1 sub 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> queries or property paths may do some of the work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Outside of SPARQL, some approaches to serving linked data 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> return closely related entities alongside the base 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> object, trading off bandwidth for latency or server load. 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> does this quite a bit ;the work on linked data 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fragments looks to combine this with client side query
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>>>>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >>> --
> >>> Karen Coyle
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> m: +1-510-435-8234
> >>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > [log in to unmask]
> > m: +1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> --
> Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
> Data Management & Access, University Libraries University of Minnesota
> 160 Wilson Library
> 309 19th Avenue South
> Minneapolis, MN 55455
> Ph: 612-625-2328
> Fx: 612-625-3428
> ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242