 |
 |
The thing named by [...]instance18 *is a*n instance of the class named by bf:Instance. In classical logic, this is saying that bf:Instance(instance18) is true. On Jan 29, 2015 9:47 AM, "Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > But Jeff: > > > > *<bf:Instance > rdf:about="http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18 > <http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18>">* > > > > I have always understood to say: > > > > * bf:Instance “is about” > http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18 > <http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18>* > > > > How do you interpret that statement? > > > > Ray > > > > *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Young > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:30 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] What is a BIBFRAME Resource? > > > > Ray, > > > > You said this: > > > > *But that line is also saying that this bf:Instance is an RDF description* > > > Rib and I are saying that the bf:Instance is NOT the RDF description. > That's why Linked Data depends on two identifiers. The problem isn't what > we call the description. The problem is what we mean by the phrase "is a". > > > > Jeff > > > On Jan 28, 2015, at 5:45 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Jeff - I use RDF description in the “plain english” sense, to mean, well > “an RDF description”, not rdf:Description. I think we use it (here) > frequently and I don’t think it has ever been used (here, or in BIBFRAME) > to mean rdf:Description. Is there another expression, that means “an RDF > description” that you prefer? (We can always go back to calling it an “RDF > record”.) > > > > Ray > > > > *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [ > mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf > Of *Young,Jeff (OR) > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:24 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] What is a BIBFRAME Resource? > > > > 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 > <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 > > > > > > > >