Print

Print


On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> 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.
>

100% agreed.   There are RDF serializations in various formats (eg .rdf,
.jsonld, .ttl) and there are the things that are being described. We only
care about the things being described and can just not talk about the
description itself.  And when we do, as Ray points out, it has an extension
to uniquely identify it.  So all is good :)



>  RDF/XML is evil. J
>

110% agreed :)

RDF/XML was the Semantic Web's Three Mile Island incident:

http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/

Rob



>
>
> 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
> <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
> <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305