W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Fwd: Use Case: "Expressing FRBR Descriptions using Named Graphs"

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:05:29 +0200
To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <64FA9FF0-DD13-44B4-B716-C6F042B01B16@w3.org>
I am not sure all of you read the RDF Comment mailing list, so, to be on the safe side, I forward this mail...

Ivan

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> Subject: Use Case: "Expressing FRBR Descriptions using Named Graphs"
> Date: April 4, 2012 23:44:38 GMT+02:00
> To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Ron Murray <kandroma1@me.com>, Barbara Tillett <btil@loc.gov>, Gordon Dunsire <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120404214438.GA47236@julius>
> List-Id: <public-rdf-comments.w3.org>
> 
> Dear Members of the RDF Working Group,
> 
> The following text describes a proposed use case for Named Graphs.  For anyone
> unfamiliar with "FRBR," the Wikipedia page provides a quick overview [1].  FRBR
> is the foundation for RDA (Resource Description and Access), the new cataloging
> standard towards which major libraries are moving [2].
> 
> This proposal for conceptualizing FRBR entities as Named Graphs is based on
> work by Ronald Murray and Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress.  These
> ideas are illustrated in a visually very engaging slide deck, "From Moby-Dick
> to Mash-Ups: Thinking About Bibliographic Networks" [3].  Gordon Dunsire has
> also contributed to the proposal.
> 
> We would be especially grateful for feedback in advance of an event on 27 April
> at the British Library [4].  The event will mark the fifth anniversary of a
> meeting in May 2007 which resulted in a recommendation that RDA and FRBR be
> expressed in RDF [5].  
> 
> The Named Graph approach outlined below is a relatively new contribution to
> this ongoing thread. As the approach depends on the resolution of issues still
> under discussion in the RDF Working Group, we would much appreciate your
> comments or suggestions.
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_and_Access
> [3] http://www.slideshare.net/RonMurray/from-mobydick-to-mashups
> [4] http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo
> [5] http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/meeting.html
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Expressing FRBR Descriptions using Named Graphs: a proposal
> 
> W3C's Resource Description Framework (RDF) Working Group [1] is currently
> discussing proposals for supporting "named graphs" to meet a wide range of use
> cases [2], possibly by extending the TriG Named Graph and RDF Data Language
> [3,4].  This proposal outlines how Named Graphs might be used in resource
> descriptions that are based on the so-called WEMI entities (Work, Expression,
> Manifestation, and Item) of the IFLA model Functional Requirements for
> Bibliographic Records (FRBR) [5].
> 
> This proposal views descriptions of WEMI entities as bundles of statements made
> at different levels of abstraction, from the most concrete Item level to the
> most abstract Work level.  Multi-level WEMI descriptions specify the
> characteristics that any given Item shares with other Items at the level of
> Work, Expression, and Manifestation.  Ideally, it would be possible to
> incorporate descriptions of resources at the Work, Expression, and
> Manifestation levels, maintained in a distributed manner by various
> institutions, into the local descriptions of particular Items.  
> 
> Consider the following four Named Graphs, each of which is identified with a
> URI (A, B, C, or D) and contains two statements:
> 
> -- Named Graph D, a Work-level description
>    P has_title         "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"
>    P has_as_subject    "Whaling Ships -- Fiction"
> 
> -- Named Graph C, an Expression-level description
>    Q has_language      "English"                
>    Q has_extent        "213711 words"           
> 
> -- Named Graph B, a Manifestation-level description
>    R has_edition_issue "First Edition"         
>    R has_pub_place     "New York NY"
> 
> -- Named Graph A, an Item-level description
>    X has_OAI_ID        http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470
>    X has_condition     "yellowing at page edges"
> 
> One might bind these four chunks into a single description by "including" them
> into a common "frame":
> 
>    FrameL includes   NamedGraphA
>    FrameL includes   NamedGraphB
>    FrameL includes   NamedGraphC
>    FrameL includes   NamedGraphD
> 
> One would then want to infer that the Item in hand (described by the statements
> in Named Graph A) is _also_ described by statements in the Named Graphs at the
> more abstract levels of Work, Expression, and Manifestation included in the
> same Frame.  In other words, if X is the URI of the Item in hand, one would
> like to infer:
> 
>    X has_title         "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"
>    X has_as_subject    "Whaling Ships -- Fiction"
>    X has_language      "English"                
>    X has_extent        "213711 words"           
>    X has_edition_issue "First Edition"          
>    X has_pub_place     "New York NY             
>    X has_OAI_ID        http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470
>    X has_condition     "yellowing at page edges"
> 
> Discussion
> 
> 1. Formal notions of Frame, and of "inclusion" in a Frame, would need to be
>   defined for the general case.
> 
> 2. Formal rules would be needed for interpreting Frames with different
>   sets of FRBR descriptions, e.g., for the simple case above, in which
>   statements from Work-, Expression-, and Manifestation-level descriptions are
>   interpreted as applying to the Item.
> 
> 3. Given the complex, even chaotic nature of the Web, flexibility to 
>   implement this approach in a partial manner is a critical design criterion.
>   Particular WEMI descriptions should be useful in a Linked Data environment
>   independently of particular Frames and, ideally, even in the absence of an
>   understanding of Frames and Inclusion (see 1 above) or of the particular
>   rules applicable to FRBR (see 2 above).  In the example described above, the
>   statements in Named Graph D about Work P would be useful independently of
>   FrameL, which (according to rules yet to be defined) would merely apply
>   those statements, additionally, to Item X.
> 
> References
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Why_Graphs
> [3] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Mar/0123.html
> [5] http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm
> 
> -- 
> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC