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

Re: is FRBR relevant?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:09:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4C61172E.6080804@few.vu.nl>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Hi everyone,


> [snip] 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.


+1.

  
> 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?


Nomen could still be a super-class of skosxl:Label, which is already nice-to-have :-)

  
> 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?


I second this: the LCSH RDF main entities are clearly concepts--their being in semantic relationship with other entities is a strong hint.
But for the sake of data richness, there could be later some SKOS XL resources next to them. That would allow to represent labels with in a finer grain. E.g., ell these MARC tags which indicate the different parts of a label are lost now. Some of these tags represent things which apply to the conceptual level (coordination) but others are mere lexical items, imho. I am generally in favor of concept-centric approaches like SKOS, but sometimes applying it implies throwing out a lot of the legacy term-based baby with the bath water :-)

Cheers,

Antoine


>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:09:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:09:45 GMT