RE: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata

Antoine,

I would argue that the rdf:type frbr:Expression triple should be
included for human convenience. Good RDF should be intuitive, which is
why OWL and striped RDF are such a nice combination.

The FRBR model itself may or may not be intuitive, but that's a
different issue.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 2:32 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Non- and Partial-FRBR Metadata
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 21 September 2010 14:44:43 UTC