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

Re: Linked Library Holdings/Items

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:04:09 -0700
Message-ID: <20111021100409.103033ibte04gs21@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>:

> On 19.10.2011 00:43, Lukas Koster wrote:
>
>> Jakob is right when he says we don't have Expressions in our catalogues.
>> Nor do we have Works. We only have Manifestations (=bibliographic
>> records) and Items (holdings/items). Works and Expressions are implicit
>> and repeated. It is virtually impossible to add these FRBR entities to
>> existing systems, also with RDA.

Unfortunately it's not simple. FRBR contains the same information that  
is in library catalogs today, only divided up differently. The FRBR  
Manifestation is LESS than the entry in the library catalog. If you  
only had FRBR manifestation you would not have an author, nor subject  
information, nor any information about language of text or type of  
creation (e.g. whether it is a text or a photo or a film). In fact,  
today's library catalog record has the scope of the entirety of FRBR.

Ross's property "commonManifestation" does not mean that the subject  
and object ARE Manifestations, at least the way I see it. It means  
that the same Manifestation is represented in both sets of metadata.  
It doesn't (or shouldn't?) say anything about the nature of those sets  
of metadata. You could, therefore, say:

A commonManifestation B
A commonWork B

because both could be true. (In fact, both MUST be true following FRBR  
rules, but you might not want to draw that conclusion or you just  
might not care.)

I don't think that you can extrapolate from these properties to actual  
FRBR entities because you do not have FRBR entities. Thus your examples:

{ ?X ov:commonManifestation ?Y }

=> # implies one of the following holds:

{ ?X a frbr:Manifestation . ?Y a frbr:Manifestation . ?X owl:sameAs ?Y  
} ... etc.

are not true if x and y are not actual FRBR entities. Things either  
are or are not FRBR entities, and they can't be FRBR and not-FRBR at  
the same time.

kc

>
> I am not sure whether we actually describe Expressions, but there  
> seems to be consensus on this list that most library catalog records  
> are about frbr:Manifestations and frbr:Item. So I started with  
> converting library records to frbr:Manifestation and frbr:Item in  
> RDF and try to link these entities to other resources  
> (organizations, places, works etc.). Actually there are URIs for  
> works, for instance:
>
> http://www.librarything.com/work/3032251
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_%281959_film%29
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_%281980_film%29
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_%28TV_serial%29
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_%28opera%29
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Diary_of_Anne_Frank_%28play%29
>
> Maybe some of this URIs better refer to frbr:Expressions, but I do  
> not really understand frbr:Expressions.
>
>> Karen is right when saying that library linked data is about holdings
>> information (unique data) that should be linked to web based
>> bibliographic metadata. This means we also need to replace existing
>> introverted catalogue systems with new extroverted systems.
>
> I am just about to create URIs for frbr:Items for more then 400  
> libraries (branches not counted) and 80 million items, for instance  
> the following URIs refers to an exemplar of the diary of Anne Frank  
> as book an to one exemplar of the 1959 film:
>
> http://uri.gbv.de/item/opac-de-hil2:epn:032163339
> http://uri.gbv.de/item/opac-de-hil2:epn:645178810
>
> Until now DAIA classes and properties seem to fit for the  
> library-related parts. I even removed some proposed DAIA classes in  
> favour of  already existing classes. The core classes are  
> illustrated in this diagram:
>
> http://www.gbv.de/wikis/cls/DAIA#DAIA_model_as_graph
>
> The reason why I do not fully stick to FRBR with DAIA (I prefer  
> bibo:Document from the Bibliographic ontology, which is more or less  
> equivalent to foaf:Document) is the common use case of DAIA. I bet  
> that people often want to know about the availability of some  
> document without telling you, or even without knowing, whether they  
> refer to a work or to an expression or to a manifestation. And they  
> are right.
>
> Unfortunately there is no connection between FRBR and this kind of  
> normal documents. I would map it the following way:
>
> bibo:Document = frbr:Endeavour - frbr:Item
>
> This implies that frbr:Work, frbr:Expression, and frbr:Manifestation
> or subclasses of bibo:Document. We can discuss about not including  
> frbr:Work, but some explicit connection is needed.
>
> 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
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 17:04:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 October 2011 17:04:49 GMT