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

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

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:35:49 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1F0E6A43-2BFE-4A86-9D43-04F02BD99AEC@3roundstones.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Hi all,

On Apr 10, 2012, at 09:31, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 
> 
> On 10/04/12 14:14, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Just my immediate reaction on this...
>> 
>> What this use case seem to demand is some possibilities to manipulate graphs explicitly, that is to create the union (in the RDF) sense of graphs (that is the way I interpret this 'Frame' concept).
>> 
>> The question is whether this is left in the application domain, via some sort of API on the RDF environment (the RDF environment I know the most, namely RDFLib, has operations to create the union of graphs) or whether we need some declarative/syntax means for that. Something like (using Tom's pseudo-code):
>> 
>> <u>  { P has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"; P has_as_subject "Whaling Ships -- Fiction" }
>> <v>  { Q has_language "English" ; Q has_extent "213711 words" }
>> {
>>   <f>  rdf:unionOf (<u>  <v>  ) .
>> }
>> 
>> or, alternatively, some syntax that explicitly says that the Default Graph includes the union of all those graphs, but I am not sure what syntax one would use for that...
>> 
>> Ivan
> 
> As well as union, there is something else going on.
> 
> -- Named Graph D, a Work-level description
>    P has_title         "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"
> 
> -- Named Graph A, an Item-level description
>    X has_OAI_ID        http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470
> 
> ==>
> 
> X has_title         "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"
> 
> so some inference happened:

...or rather, "some inference could happen above the level of RDF" as with OWL.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> P a :work
> P has_title "..."
> X a :Item
> FrameL includes   NamedGraphA
> FrameL includes   NamedGraphD
> 
> ==>
> X has_title "..."
> 
> 
> 
> 	Andy
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 10, 2012, at 15:05 , Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 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 13:36:23 UTC

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