I haven't read all of Martha's work yet either, but it is clear she's
thinking beyond string literals:
> 2. We need to be able to identify a work for human beings (rather
> than machines) using a combination of both the author and the title
> (when there is an author), but we also need to treat the author as
> an entity (in RDF terms, a class?) so that we can create a record
> for it that contains all of its variant names, biographical
> information and so forth. I think what I am saying is that we need
> to treat an author as both an entity in its own right and as a
> property of a work, and in many cases the latter is the more
> important function for user service. Is it possible to model this?
> Or is it possible that RDF (and other data modelling) works against
> effective use of bibliographic data because of an absolute
> requirement that something either be a class or a property, but
> never both?
from: http://myee.bol.ucla.edu/rdfmodel.html
Martha, to answer the question if it's still posed... A resource,
such as http://example.com/composer/monteverdi in your examples may
have a class (rdf:Type) and be used as a property by other resources.
The distinction between classes and properties is in the schema URIs
rather than the URIs in the dataset, so your example might look like:
<http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> <rdf:Type> <http://
someschema.com/contributortypes#Composer> .
<http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> <rdf:Label> "Claudio
Monteverdi" .
<http://example.com/work/123456789> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
creator> <http://example.com/composer/monteverdi> .
so the Class http://someschema.com/contributortypes#Composer is used
to indicate that Monteverdi is a Composer, and the property http://
purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator used to indicate that he composed
whatever 123456789 refers to.
rob
On 3 Dec 2007, at 11:05, Dan Mullineux wrote:
> Rob.
>
> From my reading of Martha's work, I think the biggest difference is
> that
> we are trying to address the 'entities' in the marc data as being
> unique-ish global resources, whereas, and I admit I have not consumed
> all Martha's documents, it appears most predicates in Martha's schemas
> are literals, in much the same way that Ian Davis' lossless marc to
> rdf
> transliteration was.
>
> The obvious difference, is our work is still undocumented, and nothing
> like as rich in domain detail, yet.
>
> Dan.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Styles
> Sent: 03 December 2007 10:26
> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] FW: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules
> for a
> more FRBR-ized catalog, with an RDF model
>
> Martha,
>
> No I hadn't seen this, it's useful work. Great examples in there. I'd
> love to see some example RDF based on the rules - that might clarify
> some of Karen's questions.
>
> Dan posted a query to the list before, to let you guys see what our
> data
> looks like, here's the tinyurl version (that works)...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xpxdc
>
> Karen, Martha, How does that compare with what you were thinking?
>
> rob
>
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 17:44, Martha Yee wrote:
>
>> Have either of you looked at the RDF model at my web site
>> (http://myee.bol.ucla.edu) yet? Unless I am misunderstanding you, I
>> believe these rules and this RDF model are trying to do what you are
>> asking us to do... The question for me is whether our current
>> deprofessionalized staffing is capable of implementing such a complex
>> set of rules and such a complex model...
>>
>> Martha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
>> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu]On Behalf Of Riley, Jenn
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:14 AM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
>> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules for a more
>> FRBR-ized catalog, with an RDF model
>>
>>
>>> Martha Yee wrote:
>>>> I have written elsewhere about the fact that our rules and our
>>> cataloging
>>>> data are already considerably FRBR-ized and that what is lacking
>>>> for
>>> the
>>>> creation of true FRBR-ized catalogs is adequate software support.
>>>
>>> Martha, you and I have discussed this at length, so you know that I
>>> disagree that the problem lies with systems. It is true that
>>> bibliographic records are very rich and contain a lot of important
>>> data.
>>> However, as long as bib data continues to be expressed as text
>>> strings that require human interpretation, systems will NOT be able
>>> to make use of the underlying concepts. This is one of the great
>>> errors in the RDA drafts that we have seen: the bibliographic
>>> description continues to be textual in nature, with relationships
>>> left as implicit in that text. We need rules that can make explicit
>>> what today is implicit. And we need a bibliographic record carrier
>>> that can carry those explicit expressions.
>>
>> Surely, now, the problem is to some degree both with the data and the
>> systems. There is a great deal more systems could do with our
>> existing
>
>> data, but our current data structures also in some cases make it
>> significantly more difficult than it should be (and sometimes
>> impossible) for systems to do more advanced things imagined by this
>> group.
>>
>> I see much of the current debate about why our catalogs don't
>> function
>
>> better as finger-pointing -- "if only *they* (some group other than
>> mine)
>> would do it better..." I think to move forward we need to accept that
>> all of us have something to contribute, and take responsibility for
>> making that contribution. I have every hope that the work that has
>> been done to improve systems will demonstrate some of the
>> possibilities, and in turn both inspire more innovative system
>> development and expose areas in which our data could be
>> better-structured in order to enable more robust discovery and use
>> services.
>>
>> Jenn
>>
>>
>> ========================
>> Jenn Riley
>> Metadata Librarian
>> Digital Library Program
>> Indiana University - Bloomington
>> Wells Library W501
>> (812) 856-5759
>> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>>
>> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
Received on Mon Dec 03 2007 - 09:27:48 EST