LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  November 2015

BIBFRAME November 2015

Subject:

Re: Properties of Item proposal

From:

"Denenberg, Ray" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Nov 2015 11:13:11 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (34 lines)

Karen - The discussion seemed to be going off in several directions and I ran out of time and energy to argue with what seem to be mostly academic points that probably don't have a lot of relevance to the BIBFRAME 2.0 vocabulary.   

But I don't agree with the suggestion that the distinction between object and datatype properties is not relevant to BIBFRAME; conceptually, the distinction is fundamental to BIBFRAME.

I say "conceptually" because for 2.0, our current thinking is that very few properties will be constrained by formal ranges and none will be declared as OWL datatype or object properties. However, for  documentation and guideline purposes each property will informally be considered one or the other, and each will have an "expected value";  if you receive a triple with an "un"expected value, you decide what to do with it.  

For almost every property, the choice between datatype and object property is fairly straightforward: If the value almost certainly will never be a resource - for example, number of pages in a book (e.g., 234 pages) - it will be a datatype property, otherwise it will be an object property.  

Now, for a property like "electronicLocator", whose value is likely to be an HTTP URL (And electronicLocator is probably the only such BIBFRAME property), you can treat it however you like.  

That's pretty much a summary of our current thinking.

Ray



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 10:18 AM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum; Denenberg, Ray
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Properties of Item proposal
> 
> Ray, we had a lively back-and-forth conversation going on that has suddenly
> stopped, and I'm wondering what your thinking is at this point.
> I'm sure that Tom didn't intend to shut the conversation down, and much of
> what he says echoes what we were discussing prior to his reply.
> 
> Where do we go from here? Is there a resolution? Agreement? Further
> discussion?
> 
> Thanks,
> kc
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1511&L=BIBFRAME&O=A&P=77899
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
50840
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FFMIJRCZKE4PHECH6COWRNGLCI4XIZOC
<urn:uuid:72b2ea2a-51c7-4a4f-bc16-6621b99e2746>
2020-10-01T11:56:01Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:YOYTEN6TSDUMSP6OII2KN6WOV6LZFFMO
<urn:uuid:c3ecb1e1-5df1-4aed-8f4e-90c73f43d108>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1511&L=BIBFRAME&O=A&P=77899
response
<urn:uuid:95ba8b63-49a5-4024-81fe-3336b78d2c7b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-249.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/