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: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:28:07 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB6F18@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Ross Singer" <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Diane I. Hillmann" <dih1@cornell.edu>, <public-lld@w3.org>
A slight correction, as Barbara pointed out, there is a many-to-many relationship between Expression and Manifestation: 
http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/fig3-1.jpg

I think the nice thing about having FRBR expressed in open-world OWL is that we don't need to have omniscience, perfection, or comprehensiveness. If we only have information for a Manifestation, we can publish it in RDF and know that the constrained elements surrounding it can be inferred and reconciled later. I think OWL validation is more subtle and powerful than XML Schema validation in this way.

The constraints found in OWL could be enforced by another layer such as Pellet ICV or Application Profiles, but we shouldn't assume these layers are implied in the "strictness of FRBRer". 

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf Of
> Ross Singer
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:25 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Thomas Baker; Karen Coyle; Diane I. Hillmann; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> 
> I would say the major problem I have with these models that set the
> expectation of rigidity (e.g. "an Expression must belong to one Work,
> a Manifestation must belong to one Expression, etc.") is that implies
> the intersection of omniscience, perfection and comprehensiveness from
> the outset.
> 
> The MADS/RDF's implementation of coordination also runs afoul of this
> (by using rdf lists).  The irony being that the subject authorities
> can't themselves be modeled this way without external dependencies
> (see: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85120834#concept - not only does
> id.loc.gov not currently have name resources -- although, obviously
> they could -- there is no authorized heading for "Baconian theory").
> 
> As Diane pointed out earlier about trying to model MARC records as
> "types", it's difficult to model the world and impossible to keep up
> with the changes that evolution brings while maintaining integrity
> with your backfile.
> 
> While RDF's "you can only know what you're looking directly at"
> principle seems somewhat existential, it's also built on pragmatism.
> I can't help but think there's got to be some middle ground somewhere.
>  If we can agree on this sweet spot, somewhere between dogma and
> abandon (which, really, isn't as big a gulf as it seems, it's just
> that they're fundamentally disjointed) with an acknowledgement of both
> will dramatically lower the kinetic energy needed to start getting
> data modeled.
> 
> Some of these may be fairly simple (changing MADS/RDF's coordination
> lists to rdf containers, for example), others, like abstracting away
> the strictness of FRBRer (such as implying parts of the WEMI stack,
> coupled with explicit parts elsewhere -- similar to what the Open
> Library does), while still representing a compatible data model, might
> be less trivial but allow for the creation of much more content.
> 
> At some point we (and by "we" I don't necessarily mean this group, but
> the library community as a whole) need to step back and what exactly
> we hope to accomplish and how that might realistically be done.
> 
> -Ross.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > I half agree. The guiding light for whether something is a WEM or I
> > isn't necessarily the class name or its definition, it's the
> sensibility
> > of properties. WEMI is what it is because the FRBR designers put
> careful
> > thought into the property names separating them: "is realized
> through",
> > "is embodied in", and "is exemplified by".
> >
> > For example, this statement "makes sense" to me and I guessing
> everyone
> > else (forget FRBR for a second):
> >
> > "A newspaper editorial is a realization of a opinion."
> >
> > Is this use of "is a realization of" merely a pun or is its meaning
> the
> > same as that found in the FRBR model? I would argue it's the same,
> which
> > means (through domain/range settings) that an "Opinion" is a Work
> > (presumably in the sub-class sense) and "Newspaper Editorial" is an
> > "Expression" (also in the subclass sense).
> >
> > These subclass assignments may not be obvious in isolation, but when
> > used in statements involving properties their nature becomes clearer.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 9:14 AM
> > > To: Karen Coyle
> > > Cc: Diane I. Hillmann; public-lld@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 09:35:22AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > > > I actually think that we should emphasize the "has a" rather than
> > "is
> > > > a" aspects of the resources we describe, and let the "has a"
> allow
> > us
> > > > to infer any number of "is a" qualities. This is the message that
> > Jon
> > > > Phipps gave at the tutorial day at DC in Pittsburgh -- that we
> > > > describe things by their characteristics, and those
> characteristics
> > > > tell us what the thing *is*.
> > >
> > > Yes, that sounds right to me.  Emphasize Properties
> > > (relationships) over Classes. Verbs over nouns.  Describe
> > > things less through giving them a name -- i.e., writing a
> > > definition for a class of things to which they belong --
> > > and more through enumerating their characteristics.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> >
> > Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> > shared innovation(tm)
> >
> > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this
> email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and
> for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the
> intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and
> delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is
> prohibited.
> >
> > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and
> is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at
> Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> >
> > Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg,
> VA 22408, United States of America.
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:29:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 15:29:27 GMT