W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:40:05 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BB02467@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Cc: <public-lld@w3.org>
I suspect the "over and above" takes us into Application Profile territory. 

Michael Panzer hinted at a Pellet-based solution for Application Profiles during the Joint DC2010/LLD XG meeting in Pittsburgh:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JointMeeting2010#Part_1_.2814:00-15:30.29:_Review_of_DCMI_Abstract_Model.2C_brainstorming_on_requirements

c.f.
http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/faq/closed-world/

This still seems feasible to me. A question that remains is where to draw the line for triples to be included in the graph before testing. Concise Bounded Description representations aren't adequate for this purpose, but a graph formed using rdfs:isDefinedBy could be. Here is an example, (with apologies to Gordon for using readable class names for FRBRer):

    <uri-1>     a profile:FRBRerDoc .
    
    :expression/1     a frbrer:Expression;
         frbrer:isRealizationOf :work/1;
         rdfs:isDefinedBy <uri-1> .
    
    :work/1     a frbrer:Work;
         rdfs:isDefinedBy <uri-1> .

Presumably an HTTP GET request for <uri-1> would deliver this graph independently of the CBD representations obtainable by doing HTTP GET requests on the individual URIs.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 9:48 AM
> To: gordon@gordondunsire.com
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> 
> Tom wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:53:48PM +0000, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
> > > > However, you need to think about the implications of using the
> FRBRer, FRAD and
> > > > FRSAD models. They have strong ontological constraints; for
> example, an instance
> > > > of the class frbrer:Expression requires the existence of an
> instance of the
> > > > class frbrer:Work (but not vice-versa). IFLA will publish an OWL
> ontology for
> > > > FRBR later this month (March 2011).
> > >
> > > A point of clarification...  Do you mean that given an instance
> > > of the class frbrer:Expression, one has license to _infer_
> > > the (theoretical) existence of an instance of the class
> > > frbrer:Work -- even if that instance has not actually been
> > > explicitly declared?
> > >
> > > Or does the model somehow require that for every instance of
> > > Expression, an instance of Work must be explicitly declared?
> 
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:57:57AM +0000, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
> > There is a property restriction on the class Expression:
> >
> > frbrer:C1002 rdfs:subClassOf
> >  [
> >  rdf:type owl:Restriction;
> >  owl:onProperty frbrer:P2002;
> >  owl:onClass frbrer:C1001;
> >  owl:qualifiedCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> >  ].
> >
> > (English labels: C1002 = "Expression", P2002 = "is realization of",
> C1001 =
> > "Work")
> >
> > I think this leads to the second of your interpretations: if an
> instance of
> > Expression, then 1 and only 1 instance of Work.
> >
> > There is a similar property restriction on the class Item ("is
> exemplar of" 1
> > and only 1 Manifestation). The class Manifestation has a property
> restriction
> > ("is embodiment of" at least 1 Expression.
> 
> Ah, but the nature of OWL is to describe "a reality", such
> that given statements about the existence of certain things,
> one has a license to infer statements about the existence of
> other things.
> 
> In this case, the restriction allows somebody, given an
> instance of Expression, to infer the existence of one and
> only one instance of Work -- my first interpretation with
> the additional qualification of "one and only one".
> 
> If the intention of the modelers is to force that inferred
> Work to be declared explicitly in the data, there is nothing
> in this OWL restriction that actually achieves or tests
> for this.
> 
> This brings us back to a point that arose early in our
> discussions and is perhaps worth capturing, if it is not
> already on our lists:  the difference between the closed-world
> assumptions underlying the creation of traditional library
> formats, which enforce integrity constraints on the data
> as it is expressed syntactically in record formats, versus
> RDF/OWL modeling such as above.
> 
> It relates to Dan's point that schema designers in the new
> idiom are not actually issuing "shipping orders" for data
> integrity in the imperative style to which they are accustomed
> -- even if, as I suspect, they may sometimes _believe_ that
> this is is the effect of declarations such as the above.
> 
> As Jeff has pointed out, one might conceivably use the OWL to
> construct syntactic validators to impose such data integrity,
> but these are necessarily over and above whatever the OWL
> itself actually says.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:41:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 5 March 2011 18:41:01 GMT