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

Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:08:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4C98CA8A.4010402@few.vu.nl>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
CC: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Hi Jeff,

If by "human" you mean us geeks who would investigate the data for re-using it, or just for the sake of inspection, I see your point. Otherwise I'm not sure ;-)

Antoine


> Antoine,
>
> I would argue that the rdf:type frbr:Expression triple should be
> included for human convenience. Good RDF should be intuitive, which is
> why OWL and striped RDF are such a nice combination.
>
> The FRBR model itself may or may not be intuitive, but that's a
> different issue.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:32 PM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Cc: Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
>>
>> Jeff, Karen,
>>
>> As described in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-
>> parsetype-resource there's another solution, which is tempting:
>>
>> <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 rdf:parseType="Resource">
>> 			<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:realization>
>> </frbr:Work>
>>
>> <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 rdf:parseType="Resource">
>> 			<frbr:realizationOf
>> rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" />
>> 		</frbr:embodimentOf>
>> </frbr:Manifestation>
>>
>> This can be interesting, especially if you don't care so much about
> the
>> type of your blank nodes: if you're using "constrained" versions of
>> your FRBR properties, then the data consumers who really care about
> the
>> types could still be able to infer them from the domain and ranges of
>> these properties. The others would avoid manipulating a lot of
> rdf:type
>> statements...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>> 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 Tuesday, 21 September 2010 15:09:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 September 2010 15:09:42 GMT