Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org
<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>> wrote:
<snip>

    Here are a couple of ways that "manifestation/item" continue to be
    relevant on the Web:

    http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53

    http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/6640/The%20OpenURL%20Framework%20for%20Context-Sensitive%20Services.pdf

    The former is under-appreciated. The latter is idiomatic and
    over-engineered. Both are worth considering.

</snip>

Thanks for sharing that. To be honest, these are difficult for me to go
through, but from what I can gather there is the example from:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53
"The owners of http://example.com/ubiquity would like to publish their
content to a wide variety of end-user devices ranging from desktop Web
browsers to mobile devices
such as cell-phones and PDAs. They also serve multiple geographies using
different languages. They know about the different markup language
variants that are currently in vogue on these devices,
and are capable of generating the representation that is most
appropriate for the accessing user-agent. In publishing their content
and associated URIs, they face the following issues.
Given generic resource |http://example.com/ubiquity/resource| with
corresponding alternatives for a desktop browser, a PDA and a cell-phone:

  *

    Should the different alternatives have distinct URIs?

  *

    Should the generic resource have a single URI that delivers the
    appropriate representation?

  *

    If publishing distinct URIs for the resource and its various
    representations, how should the relationship between these URIs be
    expressed in a discoverable, machine-readable form? How should this
    relationship be reflected in the hyperlink structure of the Web?"

This seems to relate not so much to differing manifestations, but how
those resources will be received and displayed. What I mean by this is
that ultimately, the files themselves are the same, but the styles
(stylesheets) are different. I had mentioned that before. To be more
specific, default for a Google search from here in Italy is with an
Italian interface. Or when on a website such as www.fao.org, someone can
opt to see it in the official languages of FAO: English, Spanish,
French, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. (Not all of these are complete) Yet
another alternative would be when a single XML file is displayed
differently based on the specific piece of software where it is
downloading into, such as pdf, html, epub, mobi, txt or in a whole
number of ways.

In any case, these do not seem to actually be different manifestations
(since only a single file really exists, as opposed to a printed 3rd ed.
of a book or map, or a book published by a different publisher with
different paging) and this is rather discussing different expressions.
The purpose of the manifestation record is to bring together different
copies/items for the convenience of the user. These items/copies are all
supposed to be the same. It is not that one community sees substantially
different information from another community. What about automatic
translations such as
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.faz.net/s/RubAB001F8C99BB43319228DCC26EF52B47/Tpl~Ecommon~SThemenseite.html&hl=en&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=ISO-8859-1
Does it help to think of these types of resources as different
manifestations/expressions, or are they something different?

I personally think these are something different and thinking of them as
different manifestations/expressions is not helpful. This is the reality
of the future since these tools will only get better and better.

The other:
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/6640/The%20OpenURL%20Framework%20for%20Context-Sensitive%20Services.pdf
seems to be about matters of access, i.e. does someone from one agency
have the right to access a specific file.
"These packages have a description of a referenced resource at their
core, and they are transported with the intent of obtaining
context-sensitive services pertaining to the referenced
resource. To enable the recipients of these packages to deliver such
context-sensitive services, each package describes the referenced
resource itself, the network context in which the resource is
referenced, and the context in which the service request takes place"

This seems to me to be related to access services, in other terms, does
someone have the right to enter my library and use the materials there.
No matter, there is still the assumption that the same files
are being accessed.

Therefore, what we see in these examples is either a matter of variant
display of the same files, or, that of accessing the same files. In
either case, we are discussing *the same files*--not
different items/copies of the same files.

Now, if we were discussing BitTorrents, e.g.
https://torrentz.eu/search?q=harry+potter where there really are
multiple copies available, that would be a completely different
discussion, but I don't see that this
would be a very popular area for libraries to enter. At least within
some communities.
-- 

James L. Weinheimer  weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com <mailto:weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com>
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/

Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules