- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:35:49 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Hi all, On Apr 10, 2012, at 09:31, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > On 10/04/12 14:14, Ivan Herman wrote: >> Just my immediate reaction on this... >> >> What this use case seem to demand is some possibilities to manipulate graphs explicitly, that is to create the union (in the RDF) sense of graphs (that is the way I interpret this 'Frame' concept). >> >> The question is whether this is left in the application domain, via some sort of API on the RDF environment (the RDF environment I know the most, namely RDFLib, has operations to create the union of graphs) or whether we need some declarative/syntax means for that. Something like (using Tom's pseudo-code): >> >> <u> { P has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale"; P has_as_subject "Whaling Ships -- Fiction" } >> <v> { Q has_language "English" ; Q has_extent "213711 words" } >> { >> <f> rdf:unionOf (<u> <v> ) . >> } >> >> or, alternatively, some syntax that explicitly says that the Default Graph includes the union of all those graphs, but I am not sure what syntax one would use for that... >> >> Ivan > > As well as union, there is something else going on. > > -- Named Graph D, a Work-level description > P has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale" > > -- Named Graph A, an Item-level description > X has_OAI_ID http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470 > > ==> > > X has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale" > > so some inference happened: ...or rather, "some inference could happen above the level of RDF" as with OWL. Regards, Dave > > P a :work > P has_title "..." > X a :Item > FrameL includes NamedGraphA > FrameL includes NamedGraphD > > ==> > X has_title "..." > > > > Andy > > >> >> >> >> On Apr 10, 2012, at 15:05 , Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>> I am not sure all of you read the RDF Comment mailing list, so, to be on the safe side, I forward this mail... >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org >>>> From: Thomas Baker<tom@tombaker.org> >>>> Subject: Use Case: "Expressing FRBR Descriptions using Named Graphs" >>>> Date: April 4, 2012 23:44:38 GMT+02:00 >>>> To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org >>>> Cc: Ron Murray<kandroma1@me.com>, Barbara Tillett<btil@loc.gov>, Gordon Dunsire<gordon@gordondunsire.com> >>>> Archived-At:<http://www.w3.org/mid/20120404214438.GA47236@julius> >>>> List-Id:<public-rdf-comments.w3.org> >>>> >>>> Dear Members of the RDF Working Group, >>>> >>>> The following text describes a proposed use case for Named Graphs. For anyone >>>> unfamiliar with "FRBR," the Wikipedia page provides a quick overview [1]. FRBR >>>> is the foundation for RDA (Resource Description and Access), the new cataloging >>>> standard towards which major libraries are moving [2]. >>>> >>>> This proposal for conceptualizing FRBR entities as Named Graphs is based on >>>> work by Ronald Murray and Barbara Tillett of the Library of Congress. These >>>> ideas are illustrated in a visually very engaging slide deck, "From Moby-Dick >>>> to Mash-Ups: Thinking About Bibliographic Networks" [3]. Gordon Dunsire has >>>> also contributed to the proposal. >>>> >>>> We would be especially grateful for feedback in advance of an event on 27 April >>>> at the British Library [4]. The event will mark the fifth anniversary of a >>>> meeting in May 2007 which resulted in a recommendation that RDA and FRBR be >>>> expressed in RDF [5]. >>>> >>>> The Named Graph approach outlined below is a relatively new contribution to >>>> this ongoing thread. As the approach depends on the resolution of issues still >>>> under discussion in the RDF Working Group, we would much appreciate your >>>> comments or suggestions. >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records >>>> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_and_Access >>>> [3] http://www.slideshare.net/RonMurray/from-mobydick-to-mashups >>>> [4] http://dcevents.dublincore.org/index.php/BibData/fyo >>>> [5] http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/meeting.html >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Expressing FRBR Descriptions using Named Graphs: a proposal >>>> >>>> W3C's Resource Description Framework (RDF) Working Group [1] is currently >>>> discussing proposals for supporting "named graphs" to meet a wide range of use >>>> cases [2], possibly by extending the TriG Named Graph and RDF Data Language >>>> [3,4]. This proposal outlines how Named Graphs might be used in resource >>>> descriptions that are based on the so-called WEMI entities (Work, Expression, >>>> Manifestation, and Item) of the IFLA model Functional Requirements for >>>> Bibliographic Records (FRBR) [5]. >>>> >>>> This proposal views descriptions of WEMI entities as bundles of statements made >>>> at different levels of abstraction, from the most concrete Item level to the >>>> most abstract Work level. Multi-level WEMI descriptions specify the >>>> characteristics that any given Item shares with other Items at the level of >>>> Work, Expression, and Manifestation. Ideally, it would be possible to >>>> incorporate descriptions of resources at the Work, Expression, and >>>> Manifestation levels, maintained in a distributed manner by various >>>> institutions, into the local descriptions of particular Items. >>>> >>>> Consider the following four Named Graphs, each of which is identified with a >>>> URI (A, B, C, or D) and contains two statements: >>>> >>>> -- Named Graph D, a Work-level description >>>> P has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale" >>>> P has_as_subject "Whaling Ships -- Fiction" >>>> >>>> -- Named Graph C, an Expression-level description >>>> Q has_language "English" >>>> Q has_extent "213711 words" >>>> >>>> -- Named Graph B, a Manifestation-level description >>>> R has_edition_issue "First Edition" >>>> R has_pub_place "New York NY" >>>> >>>> -- Named Graph A, an Item-level description >>>> X has_OAI_ID http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470 >>>> X has_condition "yellowing at page edges" >>>> >>>> One might bind these four chunks into a single description by "including" them >>>> into a common "frame": >>>> >>>> FrameL includes NamedGraphA >>>> FrameL includes NamedGraphB >>>> FrameL includes NamedGraphC >>>> FrameL includes NamedGraphD >>>> >>>> One would then want to infer that the Item in hand (described by the statements >>>> in Named Graph A) is _also_ described by statements in the Named Graphs at the >>>> more abstract levels of Work, Expression, and Manifestation included in the >>>> same Frame. In other words, if X is the URI of the Item in hand, one would >>>> like to infer: >>>> >>>> X has_title "Moby-Dick, or, the Whale" >>>> X has_as_subject "Whaling Ships -- Fiction" >>>> X has_language "English" >>>> X has_extent "213711 words" >>>> X has_edition_issue "First Edition" >>>> X has_pub_place "New York NY >>>> X has_OAI_ID http://hdl.handle.net/10150/16470 >>>> X has_condition "yellowing at page edges" >>>> >>>> Discussion >>>> >>>> 1. Formal notions of Frame, and of "inclusion" in a Frame, would need to be >>>> defined for the general case. >>>> >>>> 2. Formal rules would be needed for interpreting Frames with different >>>> sets of FRBR descriptions, e.g., for the simple case above, in which >>>> statements from Work-, Expression-, and Manifestation-level descriptions are >>>> interpreted as applying to the Item. >>>> >>>> 3. Given the complex, even chaotic nature of the Web, flexibility to >>>> implement this approach in a partial manner is a critical design criterion. >>>> Particular WEMI descriptions should be useful in a Linked Data environment >>>> independently of particular Frames and, ideally, even in the absence of an >>>> understanding of Frames and Inclusion (see 1 above) or of the particular >>>> rules applicable to FRBR (see 2 above). In the example described above, the >>>> statements in Named Graph D about Work P would be useful independently of >>>> FrameL, which (according to rules yet to be defined) would merely apply >>>> those statements, additionally, to Item X. >>>> >>>> References >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Why_Graphs >>>> [3] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html# >>>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Mar/0123.html >>>> [5] http://www.ifla.org/VII/s13/frbr/frbr.htm >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tom Baker<tom@tombaker.org> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 13:36:23 UTC