Print

Print


I thought the issue that came up with a bit different, and was 
illustrated by:

<http://bibframe.org/resources/fmP1422484598/14290423instance21> a bf:Instance,
         bf:Monograph ;
     bf:derivedFrom <http://bibframe.org/resources/fmP1422484598/14290423.marcxml.xml> ;

If "http:...instance21" identifies a RWO, then the next line doesn't 
make sense - a RWO, in this case an actual book, can't be derived from a 
MARC record. If instead "http:...instance21" identifies a bf:Instance 
graph, not the thing for which it is a surrogate, (and which then is 
consistent with the second line, above) then we appear to not have an 
identifier for the RWO. What that means is that if you attach a book 
review to the bf:Instance, you are saying that the book review is 
reviewing the bf:Instance graph, not the book it represents.

So what it comes down to is:

either "http:...instance21" represents a real world object, and line two 
is in error, or "http:...instance21" represents the bf:Instance graph, 
and there is no addressable identifier for the real world object.

kc

On 1/28/15 2:23 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> Ray,
>
> I think this is very well stated up to this point:
>
> /“But that line is also saying that this bf:Instance is an RDF 
> description.”/
>
> //
>
> Note that “RDF description” (as in <rdf:Description>) is not an 
> ontological class. It is a bizarre artifact of RDF/XML to accommodate 
> the potential lack of an explicit type assignment. Note, for example, 
> that rdf:Description isn’t manifested in other RDF serializations like 
> a real class would be. It drops out.
>
> It’s not surprising that people assume it is an ontological class, 
> though, because Striped RDF/XML has some syntactic sugar that allows 
> you to swap it out for one of the rdf:types, if you want to.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/stripes/
>
> RDF/XML is evil. J
>
> Jeff
>
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Denenberg, Ray
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:55 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] What is a BIBFRAME Resource?
>
> I seemed to have caused some confusion (my apologies) by my post 
> week-before-last;  I was away (on vacation) all last week, so I have 
> just gotten back to this. I want to try to explain my view of what a 
> BIBFRAME resource is,  in simple terms, without using  terminology 
> that I don’t think we have agreed-upon definition for, such as 
> “real-world-object”, “thingy”, and “r-ball”.  (I have no idea what an 
> r-ball is, only a vague idea what a thingy is, and I know what my 
> definition of an RWO is but am not sure we all agree.)    If I use any 
> term that anyone thinks does not have a commonly agreed-upon 
> definition, please call me out.
>
> So let me try to work through this.
>
> At:
>
> http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf
>
> The first line is:
>
> */<bf:Instance 
> rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18">/*
>
> These are two distinct URIs:
>
> 1.http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf an 
> RDF description,
>
> 2.http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18 the 
> thing it describes.
>
> Rob says  (I’m paraphrasing) “you can’t have one single URI 
> identifying both the thing and it’s description” .  But we don’t. 
>  These are two distinct URIs.   The trick is, if you click on the 
> “thing” you get the description, i.e. you get RDF, and that’s because  
> that’s what web architecture and linked data principles say is 
> supposed to happen: if a URI identifies a resource which is an 
> abstract concept, if you dereference that  URI there should be an HTTP 
> 303 re-direct to an RDF description of that resource.
>
> And the line that says:
>
> */<bf:Instance 
> rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18">/*
>
> Is saying that this RDF description is ABOUT 
> http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18 which is 
> an abstract thing (an Instance).  And the properties expressed within 
> the RDF description are properties of that abstract thing.
>
> /But that line is also saying that this bf:Instance is an RDF 
> description./
>
>  So a bf:Instance is an RDF description.   That’s the part that seemed 
> to cause anguish.  So how do we get around that? I propose we say   “a 
> *bf:Instance* is a description, and a *BIBFRAME Instance* is an 
> abstract concept”.
>
> Does this help?
>
> Ray
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600