Print

Print


Karen -- Good question.  This is something that the Implementer Group wrestled with (I think about a year ago) – a consistent identifier across institutions for a given concept.  They came up with some normalization ideas based on creating an MD5 hash.  Nate, who has been working more closely (than I have) with the group, or someone from the group, could elaborate on this.

Ray

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] What is a BIBFRAME Resource?

Thanks, Ray. Another question (sorry, they keep coming to mind):

You've given an identifier to the Instance - let's say its a book - http://...instance18. Harvard has this same book, and they either create or copy (from LC or OCLC, etc.) the instance record, adding it to their own database, with, of course, minor modifications.

Is there an identifier for the instance that is common to those databases? Is there an identifier for the instance graph (record) that is common to them?

kc

On 1/29/15 1:10 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
Well the point is that if you dereference
   http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18

you get redirected to
   http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf
or to
   http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.n3
or to another serialization, depending on what the server is willing to offer, and which may be influenced by content negotiation.

Ray

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] What is a BIBFRAME Resource?

Ray, and others, does it matter that
   http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf

might be
   http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.n3<http://bibframe.org/resources/BKw1416525962/779299instance18.rdf>

if the serialization is n3? (or .ttl if turtle, etc.)

Or is the specific serialization irrelevant and they all get 303'd equally?

kc
On 1/28/15 1:55 PM, Denenberg, Ray wrote:
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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net

m: +1-510-435-8234

skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600



--

Karen Coyle

[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net

m: +1-510-435-8234

skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600