W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > September 2010

RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:40:41 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909BF772F@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-lld@w3.org>
Karen,

Here's how an Open Library Work and Manifestation example would look
with Expression blank nodes:

<frbr:Work rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/"
		xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#"
		xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
		
		<frbr:realization>
			<frbr:Expression>
				<frbr:embodiment
rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/" />
				<frbr:embodiment
rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M/" />
				<frbr:embodiment
rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593621M/" />
				<!-- etc. -->
			</frbr:Expression>		
		</frbr:realization>
</frbr:Work>

Inversely, a Manifestation would look like this:

<frbr:Manifestation
rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/"
		xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#"
		xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
		
		<frbr:embodimentOf>
			<frbr:Expression>
				<frbr:realizationOf
rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" />
			</frbr:Expression>		
		</frbr:embodimentOf>
</frbr:Manifestation>

Let me know if you have questions.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:57 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Antoine Isaac; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> 
> Can someone give an example of how a blank node will connect a
> manifestation to a Work? Is the predicate still "is expression of"?
> 
> kc
> 
> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
> 
> > I like Antoine's suggestion. It's lightweight and solves my concern
> > about consistent queries in aggregated RDF data.
> >
> > I don't like blank nodes as a rule, but this seems like a clear
> > exception.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> On
> >> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:46 AM
> >> To: public-lld@w3.org
> >> Cc: public-lld
> >> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> >>
> >> Hi Ross, Jeff,
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Young,Jeff
(OR)<jyoung@oclc.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> The counter argument is that the dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf
> >> solution
> >> >> isn't documented anywhere and other solutions are plausible.
> > Without
> >> a
> >> >> systematic connection, SPARQL connections between Work and
> >> Manifestation
> >> >> become a guessing game.
> >> >>
> >> > You'll notice that in my example I didn't use
> >> > dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf, but rather rda:workManifested
> > (which,
> >> > actually, looking more closely at it, doesn't seem right either:
> "A
> >> > work embodied in a manifestation." with no range -- implying a
> >> > literal?).  My point actually isn't either of those, it just is
> >> making
> >> > the point that a direct relationship between M and W is useful,
> >> simple
> >> > and eliminates a lot of hand waving and teeth gnashing with no
> >> > discernible downside.
> >> >
> >> > And while, no, dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf isn't documented
> >> > anywhere, if this group saw it as useful (or any other
combination
> > of
> >> > inverse relationships, including something new) it could
document,
> >> > recommend and endorse it.  Then your semantics are there.  There
> is
> >> > practically zero RDF/FRBR/RDA data to draw upon presently - I
> don't
> >> > see the point in stubbornly sticking to the letter of a model
that
> > is
> >> > currently unproven, unused and doesn't deal well with our
hundreds
> > of
> >> > millions of legacy records.  Is the FRBR model so immutable that
> it
> >> > cannot exist with the addition of a direct relationship between W
> > and
> >> > M?  If it eases the transition of the old into the new and
reduces
> >> > costs, wouldn't that generally be considered beneficial?
> >> >
> >> >> The question is, how much grief will the RDF designer get for
> >> wanting to
> >> >> coin a new 303 URI? If the framework is flexible, then go ahead
> and
> >> have
> >> >> them coin a 303 URI for Expression:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://example.org/expression/45678 a frbr:Expression .
> >> >>
> >> >> My suggestion of using a hash assumes that Expression will
always
> > be
> >> a
> >> >> twin to Work and is easily piggybacked on it without fighting
for
> >> >> infrastructure support. If and when Expressions deserve 303
URIs,
> >> the
> >> >> old hash URIs can migrate to the 303 URI using owl:sameAs.
> >> >>
> >> > Unless assertions are applied to the Fauxpression and then you
get
> >> > into reconciliation, which is expensive and most likely requires
> >> human
> >> > intervention.
> >> >
> >> > If the Fauxpression is, indeed, just a placeholder that we aren't
> >> > expecting to add any assertions to -- again, I ask, what's the
> > point?
> >> > Just to make things more complicated?
> >>
> >>
> >> Btw could we use RDF blank nodes as an alternative here? That would
> >> bring no extra URI, and *if you think you need it*, the ability to
> > have
> >> these FRBR statements that link the W and the M (and thus to access
> > one
> >> from another) .
> >>
> >> Jeff's solution seems better if one wants to reconcile one day the
> Es.
> >> But if we manage to reconcile Ws and Ms properly, I doubt that
> >> reconciling *non-described* Es would really bring anything useful
> >> addition for an application.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Antoine
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 21:41:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 September 2010 21:41:37 GMT