RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

I didn't mean to imply that IFLA makes these claims. This is my interpretation of the final report expressed using OWL.

An is-a relationship can translate into X rdf:type Y or X rdfs:subClassOf Y. It's a challenging task to tell the difference and ultimately boils down to use cases. Even then, new use cases can challenge our assumptions. Sorry to be cryptic again, but I think we getting into OWL DL territory here.

Jeff

Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

Jeff, FRBR has been modeled in OWL and does not have subclasses for  
those elements.

http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/5.html

So it appears that the IFLA/FRBR group has a different idea on that.  
Instead they are each interpreted as "has-a" and "is-a" predicates.

kc

Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:

> Looking closer, my feeling is that the terms at the top of column 1 are
> subclasses of Expression:
>
> :Abridgment
>  rdfs:subClassOf :Expression .
> :Revision
>  rdfs:subClassOf :Expression .
> :Translation
>  rdfs:subClassOf :Expression .
> :Arrangment
>  rdfs:subClassOf :Expression .
>
> The Expression-to-Expression relationship properties listed below would
> presumably have these domain/range settings:
>
> :hasAnAbridgment
>  rdfs:domain :Expression ;
>  rdfs:range :Abridgment .
> :hasARevision
>  rdfs:domain :Expression ;
>  rdfs:range :Revision .
> :hasATranslation
>  rdfs:domain :Expression ;
>  rdfs:range :Translation .
> :hasAnArrangement
>  rdfs:domain :Expression ;
>  rdfs:range :Arrangement .
>
> :isAnAbridgmentOf
>  owl:inverseOf :hasAnAbridgment .
> :isARevisionOf
>  owl:inverseOf :hasARevision .
> :isATranslationOf
>  owl:inverseOf :hasATranslation .
> :isAnArrangementOf
>  owl:inverseOf :hasAnArrangment.
>
> You COULD capture the information in table 5.3 in property fields of the
> Expression, but then we're back to our brains falling out.
>
> The terms in column 3 appear be subclasses of those, but probably don't
> justify being pulled out separately.
>
> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:30 PM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Cc: Ross Singer; Richard Light; public-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
>>
>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>>
>>
>> > I don't know the answer, but maybe we can pull together a few clues.
>> In
>> > the FRBR Final Report, look at Table 5.3 Expression-to-Expression
>> > Relationships. From that, it seems pretty certain that "book" +
>> language
>> > are factors but only secondarily. Note the column named "Autonomous
>> > Expressions".
>> >
>> > http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr_current5.htm
>> >
>> >
>> > What if we thought of these as subclasses of Expression that we
> could
>> > then use to help draw the line?
>>
>> I don't see them as subclasses of Expression but as predicates linking
>> two expressions. An expression can't be an Abridgment unless it is the
>> Abridgement of another expression, thus it is a relationship between
>> expressions, not a sub-class. The Abridgement is an expression in its
>> own right.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: rxs@talisplatform.com [mailto:rxs@talisplatform.com] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > Ross Singer
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:46 PM
>> > To: Richard Light
>> > Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Karen Coyle; public-lld@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > One thing I want to clear up, I'm not disputing creating resources
>> > without all of the information available up front.  What I am asking
>> is,
>> > how much is needed to accurately create an Expression?
>> >
>> > If what we have is a record type (BKS) and language of publication
>> (en),
>> > is this enough information to accurately create an Expression and
>> start
>> > associating Manifestations to it?  I'll table for the moment my
>> > questions about whether or not this is useful, focusing instead what
>> > exactly is needed to create an (accurate) Expression from legacy
> MARC
>> > and what else we might expect to commonly see in a typical MARC
>> record
>> > to help draw upon.
>> >
>> > The LC FRBR Display Tool
>> > (http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html#table)
>> only
>> > mentions record type and publication language, but surely this isn't
>> > enough, right?  This: http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328 isn't describing
>> the
>> > same expression as this: http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632, correct?
>> >
>> > -Ross.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Richard Light
>> > <richard@light.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > In message
>> >
> <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590BBB715A@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>,
>> > "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  Inferencing aside, having half the story for an Expression or
>> > Work is
>> >  still enough to justify identifying these individuals. I
>> > wouldn't
>> >  consider them any less "real" than their fully described
>> > counterparts.
>> >  UUIDs are free. This allows downstream agents to assert
>> > owl:sameAs with
>> >  another individual and thus fill in more of the story on both
>> > sides.
>> >  (As mere mortals, we'll never ever have "the full story" on
>> > anything.)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a few days now
> ...
>> >
>> > I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL,
>> and
>> > thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its
>> > properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum
>> > world, where information about an entity of interest (person, place,
>> > event, ...) will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This
> shouldn't
>> > stop us from asserting what we _do_ know (or believe).
>> >
>> > As a matter of interest, where does FRBRoo
>> > (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/frbr_inro.html) come into this discussion?
>> >
>> > Richard
>> > --
>> > Richard Light
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>> >
>> > Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
>> >
>> > shared innovation(tm)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not
> be
>> > those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this
>> > email message and any files that may be attached are confidential,
>> and
>> > for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the
>> > intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender
> and
>> > delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is
>> > prohibited.
>> >
>> > Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies
> and
>> is
>> > registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at
>> Knights
>> > Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>> >
>> > Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg,
>> VA
>> > 22408, United States of America.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 Wednesday, 9 March 2011 00:44:10 UTC