Print

Print



On 4/26/15 9:48 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> -1
>
> Giving identities to titles allows you to assert relationships between 
> them, such as translationOf, abbreviationOf, and so forth.
> As there has to be a title resource to allow for subtitle to be 
> distinct from the main title, we should follow the "avoid blank nodes" 
> best practice and give them real identity.

I see your point. Yet that means that EVERY string needs an identifier, 
and I have doubts about that as a practical solution. Not that there's 
much overhead in creating ids, but I don't see much utility in moving 
all strings to be subordinate to what amounts to a local identifier that 
only identifies one thing.(*)

To be sure the identity is to the title and not the string, so two items 
with the same title ("Complete works") get two different identities 
because they are titles to two different works, and the "coincidence" of 
being the same set of characters is not part of the meaning. Which means 
that the identity of the title is 1/1 with the resource, no? Is there 
any way that can be used? Such that ...

resourceA hasTitle "string"
resourceA hasTranslatedTitle "stringa"

etc.? This is how it is expressed in MARC, with all titles being titles 
of the resource. And this is also the meaning of dct:title.

kc
* I'm not sure what the status is of the title of an edition -- the work 
title is the same, but the expression and manifestation titles probably 
name different entities.



>
> Unless titles really are just strings, and then we should use 
> rdfs:label or dc:title with a string literal as the value, but in no 
> possible world is a blank node the best option.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/23/15 7:18 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
>
>         Bf:Title being flattened out may be a mistake; I think it
>         should really just a blank node, too.  I don’t much like blank
>         nodes, but we need to group together the title properties.  Is
>         there a use-case for  having all the bf:Works with the title
>         “[Untitled] Photograph 1991.” point to a single resource
>         someplace that returns you that string when you(r system)
>         reference it?
>
>
>     Actually, I think that would be a mistake. Even though there are
>     titles that are the same *string* they name a different thing.
>     That would be like having a single identifier for everyone named
>     Bill Jones. You would be identifying the string, not the resource
>     whose title it is. Note that among published works there are ones
>     with the same title -- but giving them the same identifier would
>     imply that they are the same publication. They aren't.
>
>     I see no advantage to giving identifiers to titles. I think it
>     makes sense to leave titles as strings to be read by humans and
>     searched via keyword. They are text for human consumption. If we
>     want to identify resources, a title alone won't do.
>
>     kc
>
>     -- 
>     Karen Coyle
>     [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

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