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  January 2015

BIBFRAME January 2015

Subject:

Re: Constrained vs unconstrained schemas

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:38:50 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Joseph, You might want to look at my blog post on RDF classes:

http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2014/11/classes-in-rdf.html

and the article by Baker-Coyle-Petiya

http://kcoyle.net/LHTv32n4preprint.pdf

There are actually no "constraints" in RDF, just potential inferences. 
The inferences are based on the stated domains and ranges of the 
properties. There are examples of this in the Baker et al article using 
RDA, FRBRer and BIBFRAME. There is no conflict with a subject being 
inferred as being an instance of more than one class as long as the 
classes themselves are not declared as disjoint. (The article explains 
this better than I can in an email. ) The documentation for RDA, 
BIBFRAME and FRBRer all presents classes as determinants of data 
structure. This, to me, is a common error in RDF development. That any 
subject can be an instance of more than one class is necessary for the 
RDF graph's flexibility, and should be proof that classes do not 
constraint your data to a single graph structure.

The declared domains of properties only come into play if inferencing is 
applied. A big question, therefore, is whether any inferencing will be 
done at all over the data. The utility of, for example, the RDA classes 
to me is that it allows you to do simple queries for categories of 
triples, e.g. "give me all of the work triples for the manifestation 
with this ISBN." Other than that you can ignore the fact that domains 
have been declared if they don't serve your needs.

Your question, however, brings up a much larger question that I haven't 
seen discussed anywhere, which is: what kinds of operations do we expect 
to perform over library data in RDF? That question really should be 
answered before domains and ranges are defined, because that is the 
function of those capabilities of RDF.

kc











On 1/5/15 12:52 PM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
> A comparison of BIBFRAME and RDA in RDF (referred to below as RDA), in 
> an attempt to map RDA to BIBFRAME, raised the issue of constrained vs 
> unconstrained schemas.
>
> The full set of RDA properties is constrained by the RDA classes of 
> Agent, Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item.  That is, each 
> property is related to a specific class when appropriate:  e.g. 
> abridgementOfExpression and abridgementOfWork.  A parallel set of 
> properties has been created where the constraints of class are 
> lifted:  e.g. abridgementOf.  This unconstrained version of RDA loses 
> the context of some properties but is intended to facilitate mapping 
> to schemas that do not use the FRBR model underlying RDA.
>
> BIBFRAME is a constrained schema, but constrained by different 
> classes: Agent, Work, and Instance.  There is no unconstrained version 
> of BIBFRAME.
>
> A mapping of RDA to BIBFRAME presents choices and challenges.
>
> Is it better to use constrained RDA, which causes explicit conflicts 
> of domain:  e.g. mapping rdam:reproductionOfManifestation to 
> bf:reproduction and rdai:reproductionOfItem to bf:reproduction?
>
> Or is it better to use unconstrained RDA, which still has conflicts 
> (an unconstrained domain vs a constrained one in BIBFRAME):  e.g. 
> mapping rdau:reproductionOf to bf:reproduction?
>
> It is not obvious which is the better choice.  Although perhaps we 
> need both mappings, each with its own problems regarding original and 
> destination domains.
>
> A corollary of the question is that any roundtrip RDA -> BF -> RDA is 
> lossy. If constrained RDA is used as a starting point, RDA classes are 
> lost in the mapping itself, and if unconstrained RDA is used, classes 
> are lost prior to mapping. Either way, RDA classes cannot be recovered 
> in a BF -> constrained RDA mapping.
>

-- 
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

November 2020
October 2020
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=ind1501&L=BIBFRAME&O=A&P=1609
listserv.loc.gov
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-50
53061
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:34LPHNDJYV75ZNIHMQOFIX45UMSRBJEC
<urn:uuid:0986cb06-eb6c-4730-8788-57a57a862365>
2020-11-28T19:58:21Z
140.147.239.86
text/html
sha1:VWAJRK7TPAQFKREGJ5Y4OAKM25TOIICU
<urn:uuid:08ef668c-6fe9-4e30-aacf-5d2cad8a4e76>
https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1501&L=BIBFRAME&O=A&P=1609
response
<urn:uuid:3096e19c-ad71-4014-b36e-068b915ac66b>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-12.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/