RE: is FRBR relevant?

Karen Coyle wrote:
> I guess where Jodi and I got lost was in your use of quoted strings in
> Google, which, as far as Google is concerned, is a literal.

Google doesn't need to know whether "has as subject" is a literal or the
name of a key relationship in the FRBR model. Google isn't magic. They
are constrained by set theory and precision/recall just like the search
engines of yore. The set of documents Google has indexed that contain
the exact phrase "has as subject" are relatively few. The set of
documents that contain the exact phrase "World War, 1939-1945" are
relatively few. The intersection of these two sets is sadly and happily
infinitesimal. It's sad in the sense that libraries don't take advantage
of set theory. It's happy in the sense that my example proves Google
(and presumably reality in general) are still constrained by set theory.

> Anyone
> could create sets of literals for searching that would increase
> precision. (Ask me some day about "dilcue" :-)).

Ad hoc literals aren't very convincing. What matters are the names we
collectively assign in our conceptual models and our adaptation of Web
architecture to discover, share, understand, and use/reuse them. (So now
is the time to ask, what is a "dilcue"? :-))

> In fact, "World War,
> 1939-1945" retrieves a large number of hits on Google,

95,100,000 to be exact. You're not impressed that adding the phrase "has
as subject" reduces this to 3? There's no doubt that Google plays games
with "this exact wording or phrase" and we love them for second guessing
us most of the time. In certain conditions, though, they still seem to
realize that set theory is useful to us.

> and I suspect
> we'd be hard-pressed to find an instance in which "World War,
> 1939-1945" was not somehow the subject of the retrieved resource. In
> other words, you could possibly add "has as subject" to all of those
> pages.

"has as subject" and "World War, 1939-1945" are not random associations
of words. These are concepts in models that can be coordinated in Google
queries to add meaning to patron's lives and give librarians purpose. If
"we" made a concerted effort to include these schematic names in the
documents we produce, Google would help us sort wheat from chaff by
applying page ranking.

> I presume you meant your search to be more than a search of strings.

The question is, will "we" produce Web documents that contain formalized
literals so that Google will index those terms and thus allow us to
avoid using SPARQL most of the time. :-)

> I
> agree that the semantic web should provide more precision.

As should the Web in general. It's easier to retrospectively rationalize
a RESTful muddle using Linked Data than it is a service-oriented
(API/XML) muddle. (Sorry, that just slipped out.)

> I think a
> better illustration might be one using something like authorship, or,
> even better, the identity of the conductor of a piece of music as part
> of a particular event. 

This may be clearer illustration, but don't assume it is "better".
Librarians should realize that "has as subject" combined with controlled
vocabularies and relevance ranking are generally more enlightening to
the soul than "has as author" or "has as conductor" searches.

> 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

We agree this is the definition of frsad:Thema.

> 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.

"frbr:hasAsSubject rdfs:range owl:Thing ." tells us that literally
anything CAN be the subject of a Work. There is beauty in simple truths.
Only a librarian would seek metaphysical certitude in this matter.
Besides, isn't that what OpenURL is for? ;-)

> frsad:Nomen still puzzles me a bit. It is defined as:

I encourage people to believe that the skosxl:Label alternative easily
satisfies the 80/20 rule.

>      Nomen: any sign or sequence of signs (alphanumeric characters,
> symbols, sound, etc.) that a thema is known by, referred to, or
> addressed as.

"Sound" as a Nomen looks difficult to implement using skosxl:Label but
it's probably difficult to implement period. I doubt it's worth a whole
new model.

> 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?

Linked Data explains how HTTP URI can be used to identify anything
imaginable AND be dereferenced by humans, machines, and semantic clients
alike. Compare this with the track record of other identifier schemes.
Likewise, OWL/SKOS define mechanisms for naming entities (FRAD or
otherwise) and controlled access points (FRSAD or otherwise) that easily
fit this identification/dereferencing model. Parallel models invented by
librarians should be mapped and deprecated as quickly as possible, IMO.

> I still don't get how skos-xl would "fix" LCSH.

LCSH doesn't need "fixed" exactly. The only problem is that too many
people believe the following URI identifies "the name of the thing"
(i.e. the literal "World War, 1939-1945") rather than "the thing" (i.e.
the concept of WWII):

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#concept 

Switching from skos:prefLabel to skosxl:prefLabel and coining a new URI
for the skosxl:Label would help clarify the difference (IMO):

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#heading
 

> To begin with, I'm not
> sure that the use of #concept in LCSH in RDF refers to the subject
> heading.

Exactly. #concept should identify "the thing"; #heading should identify
"the name of the thing".

> 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?

That's my argument exactly. The #concept and the #heading should be two
different things. The current URI identifies the #concept. If this issue
with LCSH was clarified by adding a #heading URI (skosxl:Label), I
suspect more people would be comfortable with this fragment of FRBR OWL
and using LCSH #concepts as fitting examples:

frbr:hasAsSubject rdfs:range owl:Thing.

Jeff

> 
> 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.go
> v
> > %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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 02:20:23 UTC