RE: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples

..So is the goal to use initiatives like BibEx (in the context of
BIBFRAME) to create the new "accepted" metadata standard in the
library community?
Tom

	Tom Adamich, MLS 

	President 

	Visiting Librarian Service 

	P.O. Box 932 

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

	330-364-4410 

	vls@tusco.net [1] 

----- Original Message -----
From: "YoungJeff (OR)" 
To:"Thomas Adamich" , "WallisRichard" , "Karen Coyle" , 
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:30:57 -0400
Subject:RE: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples

	It’s a good question. Schema.org is open to considering extensions
via the public-vocabs list, but they tend to favor those that can be
accompanied by bulk instance data. OCLC should be able to help by
enhancing the WorldCat.org Linked Data with these proposals, but there
are plenty of other players in this group who can and should be
presenting their data this way also. In some cases, like Collection,
the need may be so obvious across domains that all Schema.org needs is
a formal suggestion and some useful examples. 

	 

	FROM: Thomas Adamich [mailto:vls@tusco.net] 
SENT: Monday, March 25, 2013 10:12 AM
TO: Young,Jeff (OR); vls@tusco.net; Wallis,Richard; Karen Coyle;
public-schemabibex@w3.org
CC: em@zepheira.com
SUBJECT: RE: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples

	 

	Thanks, Jeff, for sharing the information.  Do you have any thoughts
on what you feel still needs to be accomplished before you delve
further into moving the proposed ontology-based structural elements
into the proof-of-concept stage?

	 

	Tom

	Tom Adamich, MLS

	President

	Visiting Librarian Service

	P.O. Box 932

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663

	330-364-4410

	vls@tusco.net [2] 

	 

----- Original Message -----

	FROM:

	"YoungJeff (OR)" 

	 

	TO:

	, "WallisRichard" , "Karen Coyle" , 

	CC:

	SENT:

	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:59:43 -0400

	SUBJECT:

	RE: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples

Tom,

It might help to look at "Collection", which is "Ready for proposal":

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection [9]

We haven't mocked up how this would affect Schema.org's vocabulary
specification, which is currently located here:

http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html [10]

We do provide some clues, though, in the form of proposed subclasses
and
suggested domain, range, and descriptions.

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#sub-classed_to
[11]

In this case, we gave some examples are given in Turtle:

http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#Metropolitan_Mus
[12]
eum_of_Art_Collections_and_items_.28Turtle.29
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#The_Lord_of_the_
[13]
Rings_Trilogy_.28Turtle.29

Search engines will want systems coders to embed this kind of data in
HTML using RDFa, but if they want to see what that might look like
somebody could run the Turtle through a tool like
http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/ [14].

Does this help?

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Adamich [mailto:vls@tusco.net [15]]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 7:27 AM
> To: Wallis,Richard; 'Karen Coyle'; public-schemabibex@w3.org [16]
> Cc: em@zepheira.com [17]
> Subject: Bibex Linked Data Output Examples
> 
> ..Being new to the group, this may be a dumb question, but has the
> desired semantic architecture-based system output of this ontology
> development exercise been schematized somewhere in the Bibex
> Repository? Have we obtained a systems coder's view of what the
links
> would look like to the end user (other than what WorldCat does with
> linked data currently)?
> 
> I appreciate all of the granular efforts associated with developing
the
> object properties here:)
> 
> Tom
> 
> Tom Adamich, MLS
> President
> Visiting Librarian Service
> PO. Box 932
> New Philadelphia, OH 44663
> 330-364-4410
> vls@tusco.net [18]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org [19]]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 6:42 AM
> To: Karen Coyle; public-schemabibex@w3.org [20]
> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> 
> In my model I am thinking of several strict definitions of work, and
> none
> - that is the way of the broad generic world that Schema is trying
to
> serve.
> 
> 
> So one set of 'rules' or school of though may say that Story &
Story-
> in-English are the same Work others may not. 'We' can define what a
> Work and an Instance are but we are not in the position to impose
that
> on the whole web.
> 
> In answer to your implied 'how are you defining Work and Instance'
> question - I say 'however you like'. The Schema vocabulary should be
> able to describe both the BIBFRAME and Alan Renear's view equally
well.
> 
> Once we have proposed a generic way to describe relationships
between
> things that can be described as Creative works, I believe we have a
> place to identify good practice in how we wold describe FRBR
> Works/Expressions/Manifestations/Items, BIBFRAME Works/Instances,
and
> other well used domain specific entities using this generic
vocabulary.
> 
> ~Richard.
> 
> On 25/03/2013 01:14, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:
> 
> >Richard, regarding your model, I think it depends much on how Work
is
> >defined. If Work is defined the way it is in BIBFRAME, then:
> >
> >Story
> >Story in English
> >
> >are part of bibframe:Work, and the story in English is not an
instance
> >of the story. Instance comes into use only when the Work comes into
> >being (in the "realization" sense). As I understand it, BIBFRAME
> >separates the abstract from the concrete. [1] So maybe we should
> define
> >what we mean by Work and Instance, and then look again at the terms
we
> >use for them.
> >
> >kc
> >[1] However, if you read Alan Renear's work on FRBR, you may be of
the
> >school that only frbr:Item has physicality, the others are
> abstractions.
> >Neither FRBR nor BIBFRAME feel entirely satisfactory, I must say,
but
> >do I have something better? Nope.
> >
> >On 3/24/13 5:34 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> >> I am not a massive fan of instanceOf and hasInstance either.
> >>
> >> But applying my test to creativeInstanceOf we get:
> >>
> >> * Story-in-English is a creativeInstanceOf Story - That sort
> of
> >>works
> >> * Story-in-book-in-library is a creativeInstanceOf
> >>Story-in-pbk-book - That doesn't really work. Just stocking in a
> >>library is not really a creative act.
> >>
> >> The works themselves are creative, not the relationships between
> them.
> >>
> >> ~Richard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Young,Jeff (OR)" 
> >> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:47:58 -0400
> >> To: Richard Wallis
> >>
> >> Cc: Antoine Isaac ,
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: InstanceOf/derivativeOf
> >>
> >> I could have beec clearer, but"isRecordOf" was intended as a
joke.
> >>
> >> Regarding, "isInstanceOf", I'm reminded that GoodRelations has
> >>gr:Individual, which is disorienting for reasons similar to
> "instance".
> >>When GoodRelations integrated with Schema.org,
> this
> >>got translated to schema:IndividualProduct, which is less
offensive.
> >>Perhaps we should consider a similar hair split in this case with
> >>schemap:creativeInstanceOf.
> >>
> >> I have to say I absolutely hate instanceOf.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:28 PM, "Wallis,Richard"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My formatting got screwed by the email system, so I attach a
> >>screenshot of what I intended.
> >>
> >> ~Richard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24/03/2013 23:14, "Richard Wallis" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I tend to hold the same suspicions as Antoine as to the content
of
> >>>those 'few drinks'. I believe your wife was nearer with oneOf.
> >>>However, I'm not sure either convey the meaning of the generic
> >>>relationship we are trying to achieve.
> >>>
> >>> Personally the test I apply to these is to imagine a set of 3 or
> >>> more CreativeWorks thus:
> >>>
> >>> >hasInstance >hasInstance >hasInstance
> >>>> hasInstance
> >>> / / / 
> >>> / 
> >>> Story Story-in-English Story-in-Book
> >>> Story-in-pbk-book story-in-book-in-library
> >>> / / /
> >>> /
> >>> isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf< isInstanceOf<
> >>> isInstanceOf<
> >>>
> >>> I know this is stretching it a bit, but doing this tends to
> >>>highlight where focussing in on individual use-cases hides where
> >>>things are not appropriate elsewhere. In the above example I
> >>>believe
> 'instance'
> >>>works as
> >>> a broad compromise, where as 'record', 'derivation',
'expression',
> >>>'realisation', and others seem to possibly work better in one
area
> >>>but much worse in others.
> >>>
> >>> ~Richard.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 24/03/2013 12:25, "Young,Jeff (OR)"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The thing I like about UNIMARC Authorities is that they have
the
> >>>>notion of a "primary entity" which is the thing the record
> >>>>represents. If you look in the same places in MARC21 Authorities
> >>>>you'll find a tautology.
> >>>> :-/
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:58 AM, "Antoine Isaac" 
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not sure I prefer these ones...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS: "record", really? Did your glasses contain MARC brandy?
;-)
> >>>>> (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_%28eau-de-vie%29 [31])
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I described the general situation to my wife and she
suggested
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> alternative: "oneOf". Hmm.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After a few more drinks, we finally agreed on "isRecordOf".
;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 8:26 AM,
>
>>>>>>"Wallis,Richard" >>>>>>c.o
> >>>>>>rg>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have renamed the Work-Instance proposal to a more generic
> >>>>>>> CreativeWork
> >>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>Relationships i
> >>>>>>>veW
> >>>>>>>or
> >>>>>>> k
> >>>>>>> _Relationships> to remove the associations with those words
in
> >>>>>>>FRBR, BIBFRAME etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In yesterday's meeting we suggested that instanceOf&
> hasInstance
> >>>>>>>should be renamed to derivativeOf& hasDerivative.
> >>>>>>>However discussion on list has moved away from that idea so I
> >>>>>>>have left it as is for the moment.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suggest we try some more examples and look at the wording.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we have general agreement about the need for these
> >>>>>>>properties. It is the names we need to settle, and
appropriate
> >>>>>>>examples to test them against and use for explanation in the
> >>>>>>>proposal.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ~Richard
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Karen Coyle
> >kcoyle@kcoyle.net [32] http://kcoyle.net [33]
> >ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >m: 1-510-435-8234
> >skype: kcoylenet
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------------------

	Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

-------------------------
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

Links:
------
[1] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[2] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[3] mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
[4] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[5] mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
[6] mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
[7] mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org
[8] mailto:em@zepheira.com
[9] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection
[10] http://schema.org/docs/schema_org_rdfa.html
[11]
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#sub-classed_to
[12]
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#Metropolitan_Mus
[13]
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Collection#The_Lord_of_the_
[14] http://rdf-translator.appspot.com/
[15] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[16] mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org
[17] mailto:em@zepheira.com
[18] mailto:vls@tusco.net
[19] mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
[20] mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org
[21] mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
[22] mailto:jyoung@oclc.org%3Cmailto:jyoung@oclc.org
[23] mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org%3Cmailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org
[24] mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl%3Cmailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl
[25]
mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org%3Cmailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org
[26] http://Schema.org
[27] mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclcorg%3Cmailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
[28] mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org
[29] mailto:jyoung@oclc.org
[30] mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl
[31] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_%28eau-de-vie%29
[32] mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net
[33] http://kcoyle.net