Print

Print


 

A  few points on the role proposal.

 

One of the issues is whether we can say :

        bf:agent [bf:identifiedBy  <agent resource> ]

and Thomas Berger points out that “objects of bf:identifiedBy are of class bf:Identifier,” (implication being that bf:identifiedBy has range bf:Identifier)  so you can’t do that. 

However, as I noted in my previous message (Identifier proposal) it is still open to debate  whether bf:identifiedBy is merely a replacement for or generalization of  bf:identifier.  If the latter, then bf:identifiedBy would no longer have range bf:Identifier, and so the above would be allowed.

 

Along these lines is the question of whether we can further contract the above to (Karen’s example):

 

   bf:agent   <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/1234

 

And again it depends on how/whether we define a range for bf:agent.  If we define the range to be class bf:Agent, then no, we cannot.  I think most of us are inclined not to want to restrict the vocabulary in this manner, and to allow such a contraction.

 

Steven Folsom notes that bf:contributor sounds like it’s an agent, when really it is a combination of a role and agent, and might be better named bf:contribution.   I like that suggestion.

 

However, it does present one limitation - the proposal does allow for this contraction:

 

      bf:contributor  <agent resource>

 

which could be useful when you want to say that an agent is a contributor, without specifying a role.

 

It would not make sense to say:

 

      bf:contribution  <agent resource>

because it sounds too much like an agent is a contribution.  However, perhaps we can live with this limitation.

 

So, changing contributor to contribution and repurposing contributor, we might say:

   bf:contribution

           [  bf:contributor  <agent resource> ;

              bf:role              <role resource> ]

 

and if no role is to be specified:

bf:contribution

           [  bf:contributor  <agent resource> ]

 

 

Ray Denenberg

Library of Congress