W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2010

RE: is FRBR relevant?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:18:15 -0700
Message-ID: <20100809121815.s5vps342u8kc44ow@kcoyle.net>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:


> You asked "Do you imagine an agent using that subject?" The simple
> answer is yes: I imagine human, machine, and semantic agents "using"
> both the concept of World War II and the LCSH subject heading "World
> War, 1939-1945".


I guess where Jodi and I got lost was in your use of quoted strings in  
Google, which, as far as Google is concerned, is a literal. Anyone  
could create sets of literals for searching that would increase  
precision. (Ask me some day about "dilcue" :-)). In fact, "World War,   
1939-1945" retrieves a large number of hits on Google, and I suspect  
we'd be hard-pressed to find an instance in which "World War,   
1939-1945" was not somehow the subject of the retrieved resource. In  
other words, you could possibly add "has as subject" to all of those  
pages.

I presume you meant your search to be more than a search of strings. I  
agree that the semantic web should provide more precision. I think a  
better illustration might be one using something like authorship, or,  
even better, the identity of the conductor of a piece of music as part  
of a particular event. This is because aboutness is a very broad  
concept, which leads me to....

> In FRSAD <http://www.ifla.org/node/1297> , owl:Thing is analogous to
> frsad:Thema and skosxl:Label is analogous to frsad:Nomen.

Is this stated anywhere in the FRSAD documentation? I ask because I  
read frsad:Thema as being narrower than owl:Thing. FRSAD defines Thema  
as:

    Thema: any entity used as a subject of a work

This is pretty broad, but it only pertains to owl:Thing(s) that are  
the subjects of works (with Work being defined in FRBR). In theory,  
there will be owl:Thing(s) that are not the subjects of works.

frsad:Nomen still puzzles me a bit. It is defined as:

     Nomen: any sign or sequence of signs (alphanumeric characters,  
symbols, sound, etc.) that a thema is known by, referred to, or  
addressed as.

And on page 18 it says:

     Nomen is a superclass of the FRAD entities name, identifier, and  
controlled access point.

I think this knocks it out of the skosxl:Label category, doesn't it?

I still don't get how skos-xl would "fix" LCSH. To begin with, I'm not  
sure that the use of #concept in LCSH in RDF refers to the subject  
heading. I suspect that you could argue that the authority entry  
represents a concept, and that the "heading" is simply a prefLabel. Do  
you see it differently?

kc

>
> SKOS makes a distinction between owl:Thing and skosxl:Label
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html#Label>  as classes and
> defines the relationship properties skosxl:prefLabel
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html#prefLabel>  or
> skosxl:altLabel
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html#altLabel>  to connect
> them. For example, all the concepts in LCSH are identified as
> skos:Concepts <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#concepts> , but
> beware that the subject heading is NOT the concept. They are (or at
> least should be) treated as two different things. If LCSH upgraded their
> skos:ConceptSchemes
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos.html#ConceptScheme>  to use
> skosxl:prefLabel and skosxl:altLabel instead of skos:prefLabel
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos.html#prefLabel>  and
> skos:altLabel <http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos.html#altLabel> ,
> then this would be clearer. Even if they don't, though, the concept and
> the subject headings are still two different things. The difference is
> that that in LCSH the skos:Concept ("the thing") is identified with an
> HTTP URI but the subject heading ("the label/name of the thing") is not.
> If that sounds weird, think closely about SKOS XL:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos-xl.html.
>
>
>
> In FRSAD <http://www.ifla.org/node/1297> , owl:Thing is analogous to
> frsad:Thema and skosxl:Label is analogous to frsad:Nomen. For IFLA, the
> basic issue seems to have originated as they considered the appropriate
> range for the FRBR "has as subject" relationship. FRBR clearly sets the
> "Work" as the domain for this relationship, but they never gave a name
> to the range class. FRSAD choose the class name "Thema" because this
> Latin term carried as little baggage as possible and (theoretically)
> includes anything imaginable. They then created a "Nomen" class to
> decouple the controlled vocabulary terms and created
> frsad:hasAppellation and frsad:isAppellationOf properties to connect
> Themas and Nomens. IMO, this is the same thing SKOS XL is trying to do.
>
>
>
> The only mentionable difference between the SKOS and FRSAD models is
> that in SKOS the "scheme" attaches to "the thing" whereas in FRSAD the
> "scheme" attaches to "the name of the thing". The choice seems arbitrary
> to me and thus doesn't justify us inventing a library variant of
> SKOS/SKOS XL for use with FRBR.
>
>
>
> These are only my opinions.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 6:40 AM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
>
>
>
> Hi, Jeff (& all),
>
>
>
> Ok, now I *start* to understand what you're getting at.
>
>
>
> Do you imagine an agent using that subject? Among humans, only
> catalogers, researchers, and reference librarians are likely to seach
> for this subject heading, I think.*
>
> 	"has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"
>
>
>
> I think what you're saying, though, is "since we've cataloged, wouldn't
> it be great to expose the data" -- and that FRBR's "has as subject"
> gives a way to do this.
>
>
>
> I still haven't figured out why you're asking "is FRBR relevant?" (i.e.
> in the subject line).
>
>
>
> Maybe your concern is that authority control should give us identifiers
> not just uniform headings? I guess Karen's more recent post might be
> relevant to this thread:
>
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2009/08/frsad.html
>
>
>
> I think you're probably getting at something important, but I'm still
> not quite sure what it is.
>
>
>
> -Jodi
>
>
>
> PS-Any quick intro to suggest for FRSAD? Not up to speed there. I've
> added the draft report to my queue:
>
> http://nkos.slis.kent.edu/FRSAR/report090623.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Aug 2010, at 21:14, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen,
>
> Sorry that I raised the issue rhetorically. An explanation would be
> better.
>
> The issue is precision and recall
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall> of my Google search:
>
> "has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"
>
> Note that the "has as subject" relationship is straight from FRBR and
> "World War, 1939-1945" is straight from LCSH.
>
> My Google search returned a grand total of 2 hits (3 now that Google
> indexed this thread). Now imagine a Web-accessible library catalog with
> an HTTP URI for each FRBR Work something like this:
>
> http://example.org/work/12345/
>
> Content-negotiation for HTML (the default) could include markup
> something like:
>
> <tr>
> <th>has as subject</th>
> <td>
> <a
> href="http://example.org/work/?frbr:hasAsSubject=http%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov
> %2Fauthorities%2Fsh85148273%23concept">World War, 1939-1945</a>
> </td>
> </tr>
> Etc.
>
> The RDF equivalent could be added as RDFa or negotiated from the URI.
> Eventually, Google would index these work pages and my search wouldn't
> be so disappointing. The same principles apply throughout FRBR.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> 	From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>
> 	Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 2:32 PM
>
> 	To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>
> 	Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>
> 	Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
>
>
>
> 	Jeff, I don't know what you were expecting when you did this
> search,
>
> 	therefore why you find it to be disappointing. Perhaps you can
>
> explain?
>
>
>
>
>
> 	kc
>
>
>
> 	Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>
>
>
> 		I've been looking at the relationship between FRBR and
> FRSAD over
>
> the
>
>
>
> 	past week.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ifla.org/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records
>
>
>
>
>
> 		http://www.ifla.org/node/1297
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		The fundamental question of FRSAD revolves around the
> range on
>
> FRBR's
>
>
>
> 	"has as subject" relationship between Work and other things. One
>
> 	example
>
> 		given in the report revolves around the LCSH heading
> "World War,
>
> 		1939-1945", so I typed this query into Google:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		"has as subject" "World War, 1939-1945"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		Why am I disappointed?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 		---
>
>
>
> 		Jeffrey A. Young
>
> 		Software Architect
>
> 		OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
>
> 		OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
>
> 		6565 Kilgour Place
>
> 		Dublin, OH 43017-3395
>
> 		www.oclc.org <http://www.oclc.org>
>
>
>
> 		Voice: 614-764-4342
>
> 		Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
>
> 		Fax: 614-718-7477
>
> 		Email: jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 	--
>
> 	Karen Coyle
>
> 	kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>
> 	ph: 1-510-540-7596
>
> 	m: 1-510-435-8234
>
> 	skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 19:18:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 August 2010 19:18:55 GMT