Print

Print


Hi Amber,

I find that viewpoint a bit antithetical to linked data, that is: there 
are levels of trust, but simply not trusting ANY other vocab/ontology 
means LoC should probably just make an update to MODS to serve in some 
lightweight JSON or something. I'm glad companies and organizations are 
pushing BIBFRAME into the community more, though (2.0 introduced some 
much-needed actual RDF conformity).   



-Ryan


On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 22:47:18 +0000, Amber Billey <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Hi Ryan,
>
>My understanding why the BIBFRAME vocabulary is entirely original and
>doesn't reuse classes and properties from other well established 
existing
>vocabularies/ontologies is because it's being managed and maintained by 
the
>Library of Congress (a government agency) -- and they need to have 
complete
>and reliable  control of their data. They cannot completely trust 
existing
>vocabularies/ontologies no matter how stable they are.
>
>With the LD4P project we're working to replace or subclass BF classes 
and
>properties with classes and properties from existing and stable
>vocabularies such as DCterms, Schema, CIDOC-CRM, Web Annotations Model,
>etc.
>
>Maybe we can convince LC to adopt our strategy, but I understand why 
even
>if they don't.
>
>-Amber Billey
>
>Sent via mobile
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:19 PM Ryan E. Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
>
>> Great points, and thanks for the discussion as always, Karen.
>>
>>
>>
>> For some background, we have been using an RDF-based schema/ontology 
for
>>
>> a Hydra-based digital repository for almost 5 years. On the other
>>
>> thread, there was a lot of guessing about what linked data can do, 
and I
>>
>> think I'm in a fortunate position to say what a non-schema.org, RDF-
>>
>> based library schema can pull off.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even without schema.org properties we achieve good SEO (e.g. someone 
can
>>
>> type in a reasonably proximate collection name in Google and we are 
the
>>
>> top 3 results). But as you cogently pointed out elsewhere, simple 
things
>>
>> like adding maps become incredibly complicated, because all the
>>
>> wonderful tools built around the major APIs tend to assume JSON data 
and
>>
>> an entire stack of technologies different than ours. Geospatial 
metadata
>>
>> simply has no RDF options (we are hoping along with DPLA for
>>
>> developments in geoJSON-ld and other schemes), and we are stuck 
waiting
>>
>> for that. The solution in the meantime has been to kludge it so that 
we
>>
>> have basic Leaflet integration. So a relevant question is, who will
>>
>> build this whole new marketplace of RDF-based apps that aren't just
>>
>> parsing or serialization libraries? If we are only using this data 
that
>>
>> has to be kludged just to support existing apps/APIs, there is little
>>
>> value added.
>>
>>
>>
>> What our metadata unit has most crucially learned is that making your
>>
>> own predicates (or properties) is potentially dangerous because now 
you
>>
>> have lost the power of the crowd to improve understanding or
>>
>> implementation of it, or even if the predicate is necessary in the 
first
>>
>> place. Someone on another thread said RDF-based data is instantly 
able
>>
>> to be integrated with one another. In theory, yes, but in practice, 
no.
>>
>> It's true that blind trust of others' schemes is necessary and you 
could
>>
>> merge any RDF graph with another, but we still have to evaluate where 
a
>>
>> data source fits into ours, what their domain/ranges are for 
predicates,
>>
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I look at BIBFRAME, I see an entire ontology built anew. Why 
wasn't
>>
>> a first principle to borrow or at least map to as many Dublin Core,
>>
>> PREMIS, etc. predicates as possible? Is that a goal and a known task,
>>
>> and I shouldn't worry about it? If it doesn't at least map to 
existing
>>
>> predicates used in the linked data world, it will become a niche
>>
>> ontology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our new ontology will have very little BIBFRAME predicates because it
>>
>> doesn't seem to make any sense with its insistence on the
>>
>> Work/Instance/Item framework. Digital objects are just that... 
objects,
>>
>> and we don't think our objects fit into this paradigm. That said, we 
do
>>
>> sometimes have objects that come from our catalog, and if BIBFRAME 
ever
>>
>> comes to our library we would of course figure out a mapping to our
>>
>> ontology, that would be much easier than the current MARC->MODS->our
>>
>> ontology mapping. But that's rather disappointing in the end.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:21:56 -0800, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Simon, interestingly, this person[1] thinks that BIBFRAME is too 
much
>>
>> of
>>
>> >a conceptual model.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >One of the problems that I have is that the actual vocabulary 
doesn't
>>
>> >always match the stated concepts. I had this experience recently 
with
>>
>> >the Zepheira version, bibfra.me [2], that people often call "BF-
lite".
>>
>> >For example, "Agent" class includes the property "audience" from
>>
>> >Resource, but the definition of "audience" talks about the content 
of a
>>
>> >resource. Things like that just jar me and don't seem logical. We 
went
>>
>> >through that with the earliest version of bibframe that didn't seem 
to
>>
>> >put things at the correct bibliographic level. A lot got fixed, it
>>
>> >seems. However, it's hard to judge the model when the execution 
brings
>>
>> >up questions, and when the model is defined in just a few sentences.
>>
>> >(Note: schema.org has many of the same problems, but there's a large
>>
>> >community that discusses them so one has hope that they'll 
eventually
>>
>> be
>>
>> >worked out.)(Also note: FRBR has this same problem with its user 
tasks,
>>
>> >that are covered in one paragraph each, and to me are totally 
vague.)
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Admittedly, FRBRoo is much more rigorous. That said, it needs 
something
>>
>> >like the BF-lite presentation to make it understandable. The best 
thing
>>
>> >about BF-lite is its web site organization and presentation.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >Also, shouldn't we be creating standards using methods like are used 
by
>>
>> >W3C and IETF - with open communities, wikis, mailing list archives,
>>
>> open
>>
>> >documents? That doesn't mean that organizations develop a standard 
and
>>
>> >then post it online, it means that the PROCESS needs to be visible 
so
>>
>> >that people can participate, or at least understand the end result.
>>
>> It's
>>
>> >very hard to understand a standard if you haven't seen what was
>>
>> >discussed, what was dismissed, what the thinking was. We're way 
behind
>>
>> >others in our standards process.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >kc
>>
>> >[1]
>>
>> >https://redlibrarian.github.io/article/2017/02/01/library-systems-
>>
>> disaster.html
>>
>> >[2] http://bibfra.me/
>>
>> >
>>
>> >On 2/2/17 12:24 PM, Simon Spero wrote:
>>
>> >> On Feb 2, 2017 7:21 AM, "Gordon Dunsire" <[log in to unmask]
>>
>> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     "I do not understand why RDA cataloging examples and
>>
>> implementations
>>
>> >>     have not picked up Bibframe as a prerequisite. They seem like 
not
>>
>> >>     being made for each other, which is confusing and kind of
>>
>> bizarre.":
>>
>> >>     I think the second point is answered earlier in the paragraph:
>>
>> "It
>>
>> >>     is so simple that it even does not follow FRBR ..."
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     There are other reasons why RDA does not regard BIBFRAME as a
>>
>> >>     prequisite:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     It is not stable.____
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>     Its functional requirements are unclear.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Quite.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> To the extent that BIBFRAME's functional requirements /are/ clear,
>>
>> your
>>
>> >> remarks above are not signs of success. Remember that the goal of 
the
>>
>> >> bibframe effort was set by the LC report on the RDA test, and it's
>>
>> >> purpose was to establish a non MARC based approach for carrying 
RDA
>>
>> >> data. The report did not call for establishing a new conceptual
>>
>> model,
>>
>> >> and this may have been unwise, and contributed to the instability
>>
>> noted.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> A different  starting point would have been to start from the 
basis
>>
>> of
>>
>> >> FRBRoo, which /is/ a rigorously defined FRBR based model, and 
define
>>
>> any
>>
>> >> simplified or extended ontology in alignment with that. Such an
>>
>> approach
>>
>> >> would also consider and make explicit the functions that a less
>>
>> record
>>
>> >> based approach could benefit, and what sort of enabling workflows,
>>
>> >> infrastructure, and architecture might be needed to support those
>>
>> goals.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Simon
>>
>> >
>>
>> >--
>>
>> >Karen Coyle
>>
>> >[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>
>> >m: +1-510-435-8234
>>
>> >skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>> 
>=======================================================================
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>