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

Re: Linked Library Holdings/Items

From: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:28:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9D9B1C.90707@gbv.de>
CC: public-lld@w3.org
On 18.10.2011 16:05, Diane Hillmann wrote:

>> @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?
>
> The three vocabularies cited are actively in the process of review by
> the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA (JSC) and will
> like be published (e.g., declared to be stable) shortly.

Ok, I started to add them to http://prefix.cc.

There is only one point I'd like to get changed. The current URI for 
each termList does not end with a slash, for instance:

http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAMediaType

instead of

http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAMediaType/

I'd prefer the second variant, because this way you can use one common 
prefix for concept scheme and its concepts:

@prefix rdamedia: <http://rdvocab.info/termList/RDAMediaType/> .

rdamedia: a skos:ConcepScheme

rdamedia:1001
   skos:inScheme rdamedia: ;
   skos:prefLabel "Audio"@en .

So if you strip the part of an URI that identifies a concept (e.g. 1001) 
you directly get the URI of the concept scheme.

>> 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?).
>
> FRBR items should be connected to manifestations, not expressions.
> There's a property that identifies a manifestation in the RDA
> Vocabularies: http://rdvocab.info/Elements/identifierForTheManifestation

identifierForTheManifestation relates to a literal value. To connect 
frbr:Manifestation and frbr:Item there is frbr:exemplar:

$manifestation frbr:exemplar $item .

But I tend to not distinguish between frbr:Manifestation and 
frbr:Expression but use foaf:Document (which is equivalent to 
bibo:Document) instead:

$item daia:exemplar $document .

Maybe document is the union of frbr:Expression and frbr:Manifestation.

Another reason why I do not care about frbr:Expression is that we just 
don't have this distinction in our catalogues. We only have 
bibliographic records and holdings items. The latter map to frbr:item, 
but I am not sure about the former. So I better wait until we have real 
world data that covers both expressions and manifestations.

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 Tuesday, 18 October 2011 15:29:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 October 2011 15:29:04 GMT