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  February 2017

BIBFRAME February 2017

Subject:

Re: Conceptual models, was: [BIBFRAME] Failure

From:

"Ryan E. Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:08:56 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (153 lines)

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
>=======================================================================
==

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

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=ind1702&L=BIBFRAME&P=33893
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-34
56209
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:E5TTSUCNCWF3LPCZZIA7NVGMXKX45KCF
<urn:uuid:2f7803eb-cabb-43e7-b019-dcea69adecd2>
2020-08-06T22:47:01Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:E4NZCJTKB3URNUXQCEUV2T63QYLX5VXA
<urn:uuid:7224d135-105e-46d0-a75b-0d70a8e22748>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1702&L=BIBFRAME&P=33893
response
<urn:uuid:bf07f962-0da6-4d96-94cf-613860b3cb9a>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-34
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-51.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/