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.
The first line is:
These are two distinct URIs:
http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf an RDF description,
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:
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?