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

Re: Antw: Linked Library Holdings/Items

From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:09:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9C0CDA.1090800@gbv.de>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Hi Adrian,

>> I just started to experiment with RDF encoding of information
>> about library holdings. Has anyone done something in this direction
>> yet, so we can adjust our conceptual models and ontologies?
>
> We have done something in this direction with lobid.org. Currently,
> we only link frbr:manifestations (the non-series things described by
> library records) to organisations which have at least one item
> instantiating this manifestation. We don't re-use or mint any item
> URIs and, thus, use blank nodes.
 >
 > http://lobid.org/resource/HT002948556

Good to check. An item URI for the same book in one of our libraries is

http://uri.gbv.de/item/opac-de-18:epn:354541463

so we only need to somehow map both via frbr:exemplar :-) However I 
currently focus on items, because I don't know what a manifestation 
really is (especially in contrast to frbr:Expression) and because I 
hesitate to create new URIs for thins that already have URIs. I could 
create an URI for the same Manifestation, for instance

http://uri.gbv.de/document/gvk:ppn:16523315X - the book itself
http://uri.gbv.de/record/gvk:ppn:16523315X - catalog record of the book

And say

<http://lobid.org/resource/HT002948556> owl:sameAs
<http://uri.gbv.de/item/opac-de-18:epn:354541463>

But how about URIs for the same Book in WorldCat and other catalogs? 
Should everone mint his own URIs for FRBR expressions and manifestations?

By the way it would be nice to enrich your example with some links to 
external sources, for instance:

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/630937301
http://www.librarything.com/work/143122

>> In lack of existing RDF properties for library holdings I created
>>
>> http://purl.org/ontology/daia/label
>>
>> for call numbers and
>>
>> http://purl.org/ontology/daia/heldBy
>>
>> for a "holding" relationship between item and a library
>> institution. (by the way: is "held by proper English or better
>> "hold by"?). Unfortunately the international ISIL agency has not
>> defined an URI prefix for ISIL yet, so I recommend to use the
>> prefix from lobid.org.
>
> The holding relationship can also be represented by
> http://vocab.org/frbr/core#owner ("A property representing an entity
> that owns an item."). So, you don't have to mint a new one...

A library does not necessarily own a book that it holds. Same applies to 
digital documents where a library has licensed access to it. So I found 
frbr:owner to narrow in scope. daia:holds / daia:heldBy was created to 
express the relationship between a book and a library institution that 
holds this book it its collection, so I don't have to think about 
difficult questions of legal right of property and ownership.

>> The FaBiO has some more properties that could be used to describe
>> library holdings, but I hesitate to reuse purely theoretical
>> ontologies from academics that have not been applied to real world
>> library data.
>
> Same problems here. We don't use FaBiO because it isn't used
> anywhere else. Also it is quite complex and implementing some kind of
> idiosyncratic FRBR flavor (who doesn't...). It doesn't seem very
> sensible to me in some parts I've looked at.

ok, maybe I'll drop it too.

>> Do we have URIs for "ONIX media format" and "MARC media format" yet
>> and how do you relate an item to its format?
>
> Until now, we have used literals for specifying the format and medium
> using the properties dcterms:format and dcterms:medium. It's all not
> very stable yet.  Input for the literal is MAB field 050[1]. We'd
> also be happy about a controlled vocabulary.

I found a good description by Eversberg (in German):
http://www.allegro-c.de/regeln/rda/chap3.htm

In RDA we have:

1. media type
2. carrier type
3. content type

There are (unstable?) URIs at

http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/37.html
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/46.html
http://metadataregistry.org/concept/list/vocabulary_id/45.html

@prefix rdamedia: <http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAMediaType/>
@prefix rdacarrier: <http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDACarrierType/>
@prefix rdacontent: <http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAContentType/>

Is there consensus which RDF properties to use for relating FRBR 
resources and RDA media/carrier/content types?

>> I am still looking for good RDF properties to connect an item to
>> the library record which is about the item's frbr:Manifestation
>> (or frbr:Expression?).
>
> Why connect an item to the record if you can connect it to the
> manifestation itself? If an item is connected to a manifestation it
> already is indirectly connected with the record/the description of
> the manifestation.

Ok, your are right.

> Funnily, just today I had a related question about relating in RDF a
> journal to a library which at least holds one issue of this journal
> and came up with the solution shown in. The initial problem was that
> we have URIs for journals in the German Union Catalogue of Serials
> (Zeitschriftendatenbank, ZDB) and have URIs of libraries which own
> some issues of this journal, without knowing which concrete issues
> these are. As the issue as well as the item are unknown/have no URI
> (yet), the result contains two blank nodes...

Yes, it's better to have blank URIs than overhastyly introducing new 
URIs that must later be changed.

Jakob

-- 
Jakob Vo▀ <jakob.voss@gbv.de>, skype: nichtich
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 G÷ttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 11:10:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 October 2011 11:10:06 GMT