- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:31:46 +0200
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- CC: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Jeff, Karen, As described in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-parsetype-resource there's another solution, which is tempting: <frbr:Work rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <frbr:realization rdf:parseType="Resource"> <frbr:embodiment rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/" /> <frbr:embodiment rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M/" /> <frbr:embodiment rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593621M/" /> <!-- etc. --> </frbr:realization> </frbr:Work> <frbr:Manifestation rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/" xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <frbr:embodimentOf rdf:parseType="Resource"> <frbr:realizationOf rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" /> </frbr:embodimentOf> </frbr:Manifestation> This can be interesting, especially if you don't care so much about the type of your blank nodes: if you're using "constrained" versions of your FRBR properties, then the data consumers who really care about the types could still be able to infer them from the domain and ranges of these properties. The others would avoid manipulating a lot of rdf:type statements... Cheers, Antoine > Karen, > > Here's how an Open Library Work and Manifestation example would look > with Expression blank nodes: > > <frbr:Work rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" > xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > > <frbr:realization> > <frbr:Expression> > <frbr:embodiment > rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/" /> > <frbr:embodiment > rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M/" /> > <frbr:embodiment > rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7593621M/" /> > <!-- etc. --> > </frbr:Expression> > </frbr:realization> > </frbr:Work> > > Inversely, a Manifestation would look like this: > > <frbr:Manifestation > rdf:about="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL18215289M/" > xmlns:frbr="http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/core#" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> > > <frbr:embodimentOf> > <frbr:Expression> > <frbr:realizationOf > rdf:resource="http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/" /> > </frbr:Expression> > </frbr:embodimentOf> > </frbr:Manifestation> > > Let me know if you have questions. > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] >> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:57 AM >> To: Young,Jeff (OR) >> Cc: Antoine Isaac; public-lld@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata >> >> Can someone give an example of how a blank node will connect a >> manifestation to a Work? Is the predicate still "is expression of"? >> >> kc >> >> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org>: >> >>> I like Antoine's suggestion. It's lightweight and solves my concern >>> about consistent queries in aggregated RDF data. >>> >>> I don't like blank nodes as a rule, but this seems like a clear >>> exception. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] >> On >>>> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:46 AM >>>> To: public-lld@w3.org >>>> Cc: public-lld >>>> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata >>>> >>>> Hi Ross, Jeff, >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Young,Jeff > (OR)<jyoung@oclc.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> The counter argument is that the dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf >>>> solution >>>>>> isn't documented anywhere and other solutions are plausible. >>> Without >>>> a >>>>>> systematic connection, SPARQL connections between Work and >>>> Manifestation >>>>>> become a guessing game. >>>>>> >>>>> You'll notice that in my example I didn't use >>>>> dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf, but rather rda:workManifested >>> (which, >>>>> actually, looking more closely at it, doesn't seem right either: >> "A >>>>> work embodied in a manifestation." with no range -- implying a >>>>> literal?). My point actually isn't either of those, it just is >>>> making >>>>> the point that a direct relationship between M and W is useful, >>>> simple >>>>> and eliminates a lot of hand waving and teeth gnashing with no >>>>> discernible downside. >>>>> >>>>> And while, no, dcterms:hasVersion/isVersionOf isn't documented >>>>> anywhere, if this group saw it as useful (or any other > combination >>> of >>>>> inverse relationships, including something new) it could > document, >>>>> recommend and endorse it. Then your semantics are there. There >> is >>>>> practically zero RDF/FRBR/RDA data to draw upon presently - I >> don't >>>>> see the point in stubbornly sticking to the letter of a model > that >>> is >>>>> currently unproven, unused and doesn't deal well with our > hundreds >>> of >>>>> millions of legacy records. Is the FRBR model so immutable that >> it >>>>> cannot exist with the addition of a direct relationship between W >>> and >>>>> M? If it eases the transition of the old into the new and > reduces >>>>> costs, wouldn't that generally be considered beneficial? >>>>> >>>>>> The question is, how much grief will the RDF designer get for >>>> wanting to >>>>>> coin a new 303 URI? If the framework is flexible, then go ahead >> and >>>> have >>>>>> them coin a 303 URI for Expression: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://example.org/expression/45678 a frbr:Expression . >>>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion of using a hash assumes that Expression will > always >>> be >>>> a >>>>>> twin to Work and is easily piggybacked on it without fighting > for >>>>>> infrastructure support. If and when Expressions deserve 303 > URIs, >>>> the >>>>>> old hash URIs can migrate to the 303 URI using owl:sameAs. >>>>>> >>>>> Unless assertions are applied to the Fauxpression and then you > get >>>>> into reconciliation, which is expensive and most likely requires >>>> human >>>>> intervention. >>>>> >>>>> If the Fauxpression is, indeed, just a placeholder that we aren't >>>>> expecting to add any assertions to -- again, I ask, what's the >>> point? >>>>> Just to make things more complicated? >>>> >>>> >>>> Btw could we use RDF blank nodes as an alternative here? That would >>>> bring no extra URI, and *if you think you need it*, the ability to >>> have >>>> these FRBR statements that link the W and the M (and thus to access >>> one >>>> from another) . >>>> >>>> Jeff's solution seems better if one wants to reconcile one day the >> Es. >>>> But if we manage to reconcile Ws and Ms properly, I doubt that >>>> reconciling *non-described* Es would really bring anything useful >>>> addition for an application. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> > > >
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 18:32:23 UTC