Print

Print


Here's my interpretation of what the reality is behind "what people say" 
in terms of not wanting a proliferation of predicates. They are thinking 
of a monolithic vocabulary (cf MARC, LCC, RDA) that is extant as a 
single, huge document. It's very complex. Pages and pages of stuff to 
leaf through. Some of the complexity has been taken out of the document 
by creating side lists -- lists of types, genres, organizations... All 
of these are data elements, but they are "out of sight" because they are 
separate lists. And to many people this has "simplified" the vocabulary, 
putting these outside of the main document.

Now, just because something is of your vocabulary it doesn't mean that 
it has to be documented in one huge document. You could take a group of 
predicates that represent ID types or genres and place them in a 
separate human-readable document even though they are truly members of 
your vocabulary. There's really no difference in terms of complexity 
between a list of 200 genre terms and 200 predicates representing those 
same terms. And you can treat the predicates as subclasses of a class if 
that works for you (class-ness can also be ignored if one wants). But 
don't pretend that one is "more complex" than the other. 200 terms are 
200 terms.

Then the question is always: Well, what if we have to add a term? 
Answer: it's no harder to add a new predicate than it is to add a new 
member of a list - both need URIs, both need to be documented, both need 
to be shared.

I think we need to get over this fear of "too many predicates". Note 
that using predicates rather than term types would actually simplify the 
data generated because we'd have fewer non-sharable blank nodes. It's 
just better.

kc

On 6/25/16 7:02 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Karen,
>
> Machines are good a dumbing down vocabulary based on rules. Human 
> understanding doesn't scale in reverse. RDF statements aren't exactly 
> sentences, but there are enough people with in-between understanding 
> now. We need to start taking advantage of it.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Jun 25, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Jeff, I absolutely agree, although one always hears complaints about 
>> the "proliferation of predicates." The advantage (?) of data types is 
>> that you have one predicate and the types can be ignored by those who 
>> just don't care what exact type of thing it is. Another option is to 
>> define predicates for the major identifiers (we know what they are) 
>> and use types (or blank nodes) for the remainder. I don't understand 
>> the logic that if some elements need extra complexity, it's a good 
>> idea to impose that complexity everywhere.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 6/25/16 3:49 PM, Jeff Young wrote:
>>> It could also be expressed as:
>>>
>>> X ex:isbn “9783110413014” .
>>>
>>> That wouldn't require any new data types. It would only require 
>>> defining ex:isbn as a property, which seem more in keeping with the 
>>> spirit of RDF.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Note: resending after 2 days because it hasn't appeared on the list.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There appears to be no limitation on the creation of types in RDF. 
>>>> RDF incorporates the XML types as a convenience, but the 
>>>> specification[1] says:
>>>>
>>>> " Any datatype definition that conforms to this abstraction/may/be 
>>>> used in RDF, even if not defined in terms of XML Schema."
>>>>
>>>> "Adatatypeconsists of alexical space 
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-lexical-space>, 
>>>> avalue space 
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-value-space>and 
>>>> alexical-to-value mapping 
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-lexical-to-value-mapping>, 
>>>> and is denoted by one or moreIRIs 
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri>."
>>>>
>>>> The document at https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/ 
>>>> describes how user-defined datatypes can be defined and used. Use 
>>>> of datatypes could obviate the need for blank nodes, such that this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       bf:identifiedBy    [  a    bf:Isbn
>>>>
>>>>                             rdf:value “9783110413014”   ] .
>>>>
>>>> Could be expressed as
>>>>
>>>> X bf:identifiedBy “9783110413014” ^^ex:isbn .
>>>>
>>>> -kc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#section-Datatypes
>>>>
>>>> On 6/20/16 3:49 PM, Tom Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Fallgren, Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E] 
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Agreed that a string is a datatype and that it is the default
>>>>>     when no specific datatype is declared; however,  I don’t tend
>>>>>     to think of a string as a structured value or at least as
>>>>>     something that a machine would understand as a structured
>>>>>     value (but it’s certainly possible that’s a misunderstanding
>>>>>     on my part).  For example, a machine looking at an ISBN as
>>>>>     just some string would not understand that the numeric
>>>>>     sequence actually has significance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The structure, in this case, is captured by other properties of 
>>>>> the resource (in existing examples, primarily the type). As a 
>>>>> hypothetical, consider an ISBN node like:
>>>>>
>>>>>    :work bf:identifier [ a bf:isbn ;
>>>>>                rdf:value    "9783110413014" ;
>>>>>                ex:isbnEAN   "978" ;
>>>>>                ex:isbnGrp   "31" ;
>>>>>                ex:isbnPub   "1041" ;
>>>>>                ex:isbnTitle "301" ;
>>>>>                ex:isbnXdig  "4" ] .
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you agree that this is an example of structured data? This 
>>>>> seems to me to be the kind of thing the RDF Primer is discussing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, an actual ISBN datatype definition would obviate the 
>>>>> need for any of this (arguably including the blank node bf:isbn 
>>>>> instance). I'm not sure whether I would advocate defining a suite 
>>>>> of identifier datatypes; the current strategy seems more flexible.
>>>>>
>>>>>     With apologies if I’m being obtuse and belaboring this, but
>>>>>     “/Use rdf:value and rdfs:label as appropriate/” doesn’t help
>>>>>     me understand how they are each applied. Perhaps the original
>>>>>     question should be restated specific to the BF 2.0 Item example –
>>>>>
>>>>>     In the Item example below, what is the difference that causes
>>>>>     the strings “unrestricted” and “LB 2395 . . .” to be asserted
>>>>>     as rdf:value, while “available” is asserted as an rdfs:label? 
>>>>>     All three are human readable strings, one is an alphanumeric
>>>>>     assembled from a standard with rules, the other two are common
>>>>>     terminology (from a standard vocab somewhere that is not
>>>>>     published as RDF?), none of them name a resource, all describe
>>>>>     attributes of the resource (circulation status, accessibility,
>>>>>     and shelf location) – what criteria determine whether they are
>>>>>     rdf:value or rdfs:label?  In BF 2.0, what constitutes
>>>>>     appropriate application of rdf:value and rdfs:label to this data?
>>>>>
>>>>>     <http://bibframe.example.org/item/itemZ >
>>>>>
>>>>>     a              bf:Item ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:heldBy [rdfs:label “Library of Congress” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:subLocation [rdfs:label “Prints and Photographs Division” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:physicalLocation [rdfs:label “Reference collection” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:itemOf http://bibframe.example.org/instance/instanceY ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:shelfMarkLcc [rdf:value “LB2395.C65 1991” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:usageAndAccessPolicy [
>>>>>
>>>>>     a bf:AccessPolicy ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     rdf:value “unrestricted” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:status [rdfs:label “available” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:note                 [rdfs:label “Page 31 torn” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nancy
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Denenberg, Ray [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 4:57 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Tom –
>>>>>
>>>>>     Yes, my wording regarding rdfs:literal was a bit lazy.
>>>>>     Actually rdfs:literal is defined, it is a class, the class of
>>>>>     all literal values and the value of rdf:value is a member of
>>>>>     this class, meaning the range of rdf:value is rdfs:literal
>>>>>     (although I can’t find anywhere in the specs that actually
>>>>>     says this) so it is a class/range rather than datatype. It
>>>>>     seemed easier to just say the rdf:value datatype is
>>>>>     rdfs:literal.  But you’re right, technically that’s incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>     On the conventions document questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *Second point.* What the second point tries to say is this.
>>>>>     Nothing terribly profound, but say you want to express that an
>>>>>     instance has carrier “audio disc”. Then any of the following
>>>>>     three way is acceptable:
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:carrier
>>>>>                   <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/sd> .
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:carrier
>>>>>                         <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/sd>
>>>>>         .
>>>>>
>>>>>     <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/sd>
>>>>>
>>>>>                           a bf:Carrier ;
>>>>>
>>>>>      rdfs:label “audio disc” .
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:carrier <http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/carriers/sd>   [
>>>>>
>>>>>     a bf:Carrier ;
>>>>>
>>>>>      rdfs:label “audio disc” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     *URI vs. Blank Node. *Again nothing profound. Just that
>>>>>     specifying whether it is acceptable to create blank nodes vs.
>>>>>     requiring that a URI must always instead be created is outside
>>>>>     the scope of an ontology.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *Inverse property . *Yes, we meant inverse, not reciprocal.
>>>>>     When would an inverse property be appropriate or
>>>>>     inappropriate?  I cannot really articulate a firm rule,.  In
>>>>>     some cases it’s clear: instance and instanceOf.  In some cases
>>>>>     less clear: subject. BIBFRAME has defined a number of  inverse
>>>>>     properties and will continue to do so when a clear need is
>>>>>     indicated.  BIBFRAME’s position though is to not simply
>>>>>     declare an inverse for every property just in case it happens
>>>>>     to be needed some day.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *Datatype vs. Object Properties*. There was much discussion of
>>>>>     this, on this listserv (quite a while back) and there was a
>>>>>     strong consensus that there be no property that could take a
>>>>>     literal object in one statement and a resource in another.
>>>>>     Thus every property should be declared be a datatype or object
>>>>>     property and BIBFRAME has explicitly done so, via OWL.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *Classes and types.*Do we mean the same thing?  Yes and no. 
>>>>>     This is a guideline used in the development of the ontology. 
>>>>>     Take identifier types, for example.  In BF 1 The type of
>>>>>     identifier was expressed via property (e.g. bf:isbn).  In BF2
>>>>>     it is expressed via class (bf:Isbn).   So in BF 2, yes, type
>>>>>     is intended to mean class membership.  (There are a few
>>>>>     exceptions,  a few type properties to be used when there is no
>>>>>     known class and the type must be expressed as a string, for
>>>>>     example note type).
>>>>>
>>>>>     *Proliferation of properties*. There were cases in BIBFRAME 1
>>>>>     of multiple properties that have been consolidated into a
>>>>>     single property in BIBFRAME 2. For example there was
>>>>>     classificationScheme and identiferType and these have been
>>>>>     consolidated into the single property bf:source (a literal,
>>>>>     used only when there is no known class) because it would only
>>>>>     occur within a bf:Classification or bf:Identifier resource
>>>>>     (respectively) so it would be known whether it is a
>>>>>     classification or identifier source.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *rdf:value vs. rdfs:resource.*Which says “/Use rdf:value and
>>>>>     rdfs:label as appropriate when supplying the value of a
>>>>>     resource/” probably should be truncated to “/Use rdf:value and
>>>>>     rdfs:label as appropriate/”. Either that or elaborate as
>>>>>     discussed in this thread,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks, hope that helps, and keep those questions coming!
>>>>>
>>>>>     Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Tom Johnson
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 3:44 PM
>>>>>     *To:* <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     Chiming in to agree with Ray that, in general, xsd:string is
>>>>>     an appropriate datatype for an rdf:value. And that ISBNs, in
>>>>>     particular, are not xsd:integers. Their value space is not
>>>>>     aligned with that type (as defined at [0].
>>>>>
>>>>>     Note that all literals have datatypes (see [1]). As a minor
>>>>>     correction to Ray's point, the default datatype for for
>>>>>     concrete syntaxes supporting "simple literals" is xsd:String,
>>>>>     rather than rdfs:literal (which is not defined).
>>>>>
>>>>>     I don't think it's correct that rdf:valueis an alternative to
>>>>>     a URI. Indeed, it may often be useful to assign URIs to
>>>>>     resources with declared values (e.g. to enumerate values for
>>>>>     later use). Apart from that, I agree with where the group has
>>>>>     landed on the differences from label types: labels name
>>>>>     resources, while values express, to some extent, /what the
>>>>>     resource is/.
>>>>>
>>>>>     To bring us back to the original issue: I recently read the
>>>>>     conventions document, and found that I couldn't understand
>>>>>     many of the items there. Perhaps some examples and/or
>>>>>     motivations should be given?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Specifically, I could use clarification on:
>>>>>
>>>>>       (2) What is meant by this? does it say more than simply "use
>>>>>     RDF"? Is it advising that data publishers avoid blank nodes
>>>>>     without labels?
>>>>>
>>>>>       (3) What is the issue of URI vs. blank node? What does it
>>>>>     mean to have no position? The explanation of this item seems
>>>>>     to misunderstand blank nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>>       (5) Does this mean to say "inverse property", rather than
>>>>>     reciprocal? When might a such a property be appropriate or
>>>>>     inappropriate?
>>>>>
>>>>>     I have smaller concerns about:
>>>>>
>>>>>       (1) Can a reason for this decision be given? Is the goal to
>>>>>     leave the door open for OWL-DL?
>>>>>
>>>>>       (4) This one has a good explanation, but some loose use of
>>>>>     language; (e.g.  "Some advantages of representing type as
>>>>>     class rather than property"). Additionally, is "type" intended
>>>>>     to mean something more specific than class membership?
>>>>>
>>>>>       (7) Are there examples? I think I understand this to be
>>>>>     avoiding properties like :isPartOfWork, :isPartOfInstance,
>>>>>     etc..., but I'm mostly guessing.
>>>>>
>>>>>       (8) (As discussed in this thread).
>>>>>
>>>>>     - Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>     [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#integer
>>>>>
>>>>>     [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Denenberg, Ray
>>>>>     <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Values of rdf:value in BIBFRAME do have a datatype:
>>>>>     rdfs:literal.  That means that unless declared otherwise, it
>>>>>     is a string by default. Whenever you want, you can refine a
>>>>>     literal
>>>>>
>>>>>     e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>     (1) rdf: value  “10”
>>>>>
>>>>>     (2) rdf:value  “10”^^xs:int
>>>>>
>>>>>     The first is a string; the second is an integer. But there is
>>>>>     nowhere in BIBFRAME that you would refine a value of rdf:value.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Consider for example a bf:Identifier. BIBFRAME prescribes that
>>>>>     you assert the value of the identifier by rdf:value:
>>>>>
>>>>>            bf:identifiedBy [ a              bf:Isbn
>>>>>
>>>>>     rdf:value “9783110413014” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     “9783110413014” is a string.  You could refine it and assert
>>>>>     that it’s an integer:
>>>>>
>>>>>     rdf:value “9783110413014”^^xs:int
>>>>>
>>>>>     But you don’t want to do that because it isn’t an integer,
>>>>>     it’s just a string.    And wherever rdf:value is prescribed in
>>>>>     BIBFRAME, it is just a string.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Someday you may be able to assert that it has datatype “isbn”….
>>>>>
>>>>>     rdf:value “9783110413014”^^xyz:isbn
>>>>>
>>>>>     … and that may facilitate processing of the isbn string.  But
>>>>>     there is no such primitive datatype yet. However the statement
>>>>>     “a bf:Isbn” would seem to serve that purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>>     My point being that wherever rdf:value occurs, though there
>>>>>     may not be an explicit primitive datatype, the actual datatype
>>>>>     is understood by context.
>>>>>
>>>>>     There are datatype properties in BIBFRAME where is makes sense
>>>>>     to refine the datatype.  Take bf:count or bf:date for example
>>>>>
>>>>>     Someone might declare:
>>>>>
>>>>>          bf:count   “10”
>>>>>
>>>>>     and someone else declare:
>>>>>
>>>>>     bf:count   “10”^^xs:int
>>>>>
>>>>>     Or
>>>>>
>>>>>                 bf:date “June 20, 2016”
>>>>>
>>>>>     vs: bf:date “20160620”^^xdt:date
>>>>>
>>>>>     And in both cases the second form is going to be more easily
>>>>>     processed.
>>>>>
>>>>>     But neither of these is supplied via rdf:value; they are
>>>>>     datatype properties, for which rdf:value doesn’t apply.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Ray
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Joseph Kiegel
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 1:18 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>>     It seems that the object of rdf:value should have a datatype.
>>>>>     A good basis for a list of datatypes is the table in RDF
>>>>>     Semantics
>>>>>     (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#DTYPEINTERP).
>>>>>     These types are widely understood.  Of course, local types can
>>>>>     be established but they make widespread sharing of data more
>>>>>     difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Looked at from this point of view, only one case from the
>>>>>     examples of rdf:value in the BIBFRAME specifications fits an
>>>>>     xsd datatype:  ISBNs are integers.  The rest do not conform to
>>>>>     a standard datatype.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Fallgren,
>>>>>     Nancy (NIH/NLM) [E]
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 9:24 AM
>>>>>     *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     At NLM, we’ve been asking the same question as Joe in re use
>>>>>     of rdf:value v. rdfs:label in the BF 2.0 Item examples.  The
>>>>>     use of rdf:value with a text string or with common terminology
>>>>>     for which there should probably be a URI doesn’t make sense to
>>>>>     us either.
>>>>>
>>>>>     It’s pretty clear that W3C defines rdf:value as a ‘structured’
>>>>>     value while rdfs:label is for a human readable label. But the
>>>>>     W3C definition of rdf:value as an idiom with no meaning on its
>>>>>     own, seems to indicate that it needs to be used within some
>>>>>     context.  The W3C example in the Primer
>>>>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#rdfvalue>https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#rdfvalue
>>>>>     implies that it should have a datatype (which makes sense for
>>>>>     a machine to understand a structured value) as well as another
>>>>>     property giving context about the structured value. So, if LC
>>>>>     shelf mark has a structured/standard datatype that can be
>>>>>     interpreted by machines as an LC Shelf mark, then use of
>>>>>     rdf:value could make sense in that context; otherwise, it
>>>>>     seems rdfs:label would be preferable.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Also, best practices for sharing LD should probably not entail
>>>>>     local interpretation of properties from another vocabulary.
>>>>>
>>>>>     -Nancy
>>>>>
>>>>>     Nancy J. Fallgren
>>>>>
>>>>>     Metadata Specialist Librarian
>>>>>
>>>>>     Cataloging and Metadata Management Section
>>>>>
>>>>>     Technical Services Division
>>>>>
>>>>>     National Library of Medicine
>>>>>
>>>>>     [log in to unmask]
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Hubay Miklós [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 11:46 AM
>>>>>     *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] FW: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     Imho, the two properties are different. One is for
>>>>>     value-declaration, and the other one is "may be used to
>>>>>     /provide a human-readable version of a resource's name/."
>>>>>
>>>>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
>>>>>
>>>>>     2016.06.20. 17:34 keltezéssel, Joseph Kiegel írta:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Sorry, I meant rdfs:label.
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Joseph Kiegel
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 8:34 AM
>>>>>     *To:* 'Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum'
>>>>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>     *Subject:* RE: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     So is rdfs:value. The question is:  what is the “appropriate”
>>>>>     difference between the two?
>>>>>
>>>>>     *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>>>>>     [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Sanderson
>>>>>     *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2016 8:26 AM
>>>>>     *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>     *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] rdf:value
>>>>>
>>>>>     It's the value of the resource to which it's attached.
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>     wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:identifiedBy [ a bf:Isbn
>>>>>
>>>>>         rdf:value “9783110413014” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>         /Example 2/
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:identifiedBy [ a identifier:ABC ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         rdf:value “MX3-387” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>         /Example 3/
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:identifiedBy [ a bf:Identifier ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:source “xyz” ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         rdf:value “1234567890” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an ISBN, and its value is 9783...
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an ABC identifier, and its value is MX3-387
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an untyped identifier from source system xyz, and
>>>>>     it's value is 123...
>>>>>
>>>>>         *Notes*
>>>>>
>>>>>         /Example 3/
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:baseMaterial [
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:code [ rdf:value “o” ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:source [rdf:value “marc007ng04” ] ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:note [ a bf:Note ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         rdfs:label “Image printed on thick gold paper.” ] ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an untyped resource, which one imagines is a Code,
>>>>>     with value "o".
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an untyped resource, which is some sort of Source,
>>>>>     with value "marc007..."
>>>>>
>>>>>         *Item*
>>>>>
>>>>>         /Example (truncated)/
>>>>>
>>>>>         <http://bibframe.example.org/item/itemZ>
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:shelfMarkLcc [rdf:value “LB2395.C65 1991” ] ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         bf:usageAndAccessPolicy [
>>>>>
>>>>>         a bf:AccessPolicy ;
>>>>>
>>>>>         rdf:value “unrestricted” ] .
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is an LCC, and its value is LB...
>>>>>
>>>>>     There is a Policy and its value is "unrestricted"
>>>>>
>>>>>     Note -- this use is not very machine friendly. A better model
>>>>>     would have identifiable policies, with their own URIs.
>>>>>
>>>>>     HTH,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>     Rob Sanderson
>>>>>
>>>>>     Semantic Architect
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Getty Trust
>>>>>
>>>>>     Los Angeles, CA 90049
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hubay Miklós
>>>>>
>>>>>     tájékoztató könyvtáros, könyvtárirendszer-adminisztrátor, MTMT-adminisztrátor
>>>>>
>>>>>     Széchenyi István Egyetem Egyetemi Könyvtár
>>>>>
>>>>>     9026 Győr, Egyetem tér 1.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Tel.: 96/613-443
>>>>>
>>>>>     email:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>> -- 
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]  http://kcoyle.net
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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