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 12:16:08 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB7038@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: <public-lld@w3.org>
> I hear this said a lot, but I want to understand what it means to only
> have information for a Manifestation. That would mean that you do not
> have an author, because primary creator(s) is a Work property.

Right. You say you ONLY have information for a Manifestation, so that must mean the creator(s) (of the Work) are unknown (at least to you).
 
Because of the FRBR model constraints, though, it's never quite true to say we "only have information for a Manifestation".  The mere fact that we have information for about Manifestation means we also know at least two properties of the implied Work: 1) its rdf:type (duh! ;-) and 2) a frbr:isRealizedThrough association with a similarly implied Expression entity. These facts can be inferred from FRBR OWL, though, and thus don't need to be represented explicitly (although they could be).

> Also,
> if you have a text, language of text is an expression property. A very
> simple citation, like:
> 
> MELVILLE, H. (1997). Moby Dick. New York, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux
> 
> cannot be coded by using only properties from the manifestation entity.

Parsing this citation tells us that MELVILLE, H. is the name of the creator ("created by" is a Work property).  Now that we have information about the Work that can't be inferred from the FRBR model, it becomes necessary to represent the Work explicitly in order to capture this information. Since we have both a Work and Manifestation entity now, FRBR requires us to connect it through an Expression entity (which can't be inferred at this point). You imply that you know the language of the text (which as you say is an expression property), so that's all the more reason for representing it explicitly. The other properties in the citation can be distributed accordingly.

> 
> The only one of the WEMI entities that can stand alone is W. The rest
> are incomplete for just about any bibliographic use without the ones
> (which may be plural) above it.

We need to be careful about the meaning of "stand alone". As a matter of reality, Works can exist and "stand alone" in the sense of never (as far as we can determine) being expressed or manifested. The same can't be said of Expressions, Manifestations or Items because a Work entity MUST be implied in common sense reality.

> 
> I think we need to develop a set of examples that allow us to see what
> really goes on when you divide up your bibliographic data into WEMI --
> I think it will be much easier to understand that way. I think we have
> some on the DCMI/RDA wiki, and we could develop others.

I'd be willing to try.

Jeff

> 
> kc
> 
> >
> >> -----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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:17:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 March 2011 17:17:21 GMT