LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  September 2013

CODE4LIB September 2013

Subject:

Re: Expressing negatives and similar in RDF

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:00:19 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (138 lines)

OWL contains some negative assertions, as Thomas noted. Nothing prevents 
anyone else from negating your negative, however, in that Open World. 
Assuming that we have provenance on statements, then you might be able 
to make sense of two conflicting bits of information.

I've found two vocabularies that do a Boolean negation (Not, as well as 
And and Or):

http://vocab.deri.ie/csp
http://vocab.deri.ie/ppo#

The CSP is used for car models, where there can be hundreds of options 
on a car (color, radio, #doors, gps, etc etc). However, looking at the 
diagram [1] I think it would take me great concentration to figure out 
what they are doing (not to mention their weird use of the term 
"Fluent"). I'm going to look for examples but am not sure how to do that 
- hunt and peck, I guess.

kc
[1] http://vocab.deri.ie/csp#Not

On 9/13/13 6:46 AM, Donald Brower wrote:
> At a theoretical level, doesn't the Open World Assumption in RDF rule out
> outright negations? That is, someone else may know the title, and could
> assert it in a separate RDF document. RDF semantics seem to conflate
> unknown with nonexistent.
>
> Practically, Esme's approach seems better in these cases.
>
>
> -Don
>
>
> --
> Donald Brower, Ph.D.
> Digital Library Infrastructure Lead
> Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame
>
>
>
>
> On 9/13/13 8:51 AM, "Esmé Cowles" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Thomas-
>>
>> This isn't something I've run across yet.  But one thing you could do is
>> create some URIs for different kinds of unknown/nonexistent titles:
>>
>> example:book1 dc:title example:unknownTitle
>> example:book2 dc:title example:noTitle
>> etc.
>>
>> You could then describe example:unknownTitle with a label or comment to
>> fully describe the states you wanted to capture with the different
>> categories.
>>
>> -Esme
>> --
>> Esme Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
>> argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt, 1783
>>
>> On 09/13/2013, at 7:32 AM, "Meehan, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how sensible a question this is (it's certainly
>>> theoretical), but it cropped up in relation to a rare books cataloguing
>>> discussion. Is there a standard or accepted way to express negatives in
>>> RDF? This is best explained by examples, expressed in mock-turtle:
>>>
>>> If I want  to say this book has the title "Cats in RDA" I would do
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> example:thisbook dc:title "Cats in RDA" .
>>>
>>> Normally, if a predicate like dc:title is not relevant to
>>> example:thisbook I believe I am right in thinking that it would simply
>>> be missing, i.e. it is not part of a record where a set number of fields
>>> need to be filled in, so no need to even make the statement. However,
>>> there are occasions where a positively negative statement might be
>>> useful. I understand OWL has a way of managing the statement This book
>>> does not have the title "Cats in RDA" [1]:
>>>
>>> []  rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion ;
>>>      owl:sourceIndividual   example:thisbook ;
>>>      owl:assertionProperty  dc:title ;
>>>      owl:targetIndividual   "Cats in RDA" .
>>>
>>> However, it would be more useful, and quite common at least in a
>>> bibliographic context, to say "This book does not have a title". Ideally
>>> (?!) there would be an ontology of concepts like "none", "unknown", or
>>> even "something, but unspecified":
>>>
>>> This book has no title:
>>> example:thisbook dc:title hasobject:false .
>>>
>>> It is unknown if this book has a title (sounds undesirable but I can
>>> think of instances where it might be handy[2]):
>>> example:thisbook dc:title hasobject:unknown .
>>>
>>> This book has a title but it has not been specified:
>>> example:thisbook dc:title hasobject:true .
>>>
>>> In terms of cataloguing, the answer is perhaps to refer to the rules
>>> (which would normally mandate supplied titles in square brackets and so
>>> forth) rather than use RDF to express this kind of thing, although the
>>> rules differ depending on the part of description and, in the case of
>>> the kind of thing that prompted the question- the presence of clasps on
>>> rare books- there are no rules. I wonder if anyone has any more wisdom
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> [1] Adapted from
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#Object_Properties
>>> [2] No many tbh, but e.g. title in an unknown script or indecipherable
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Thomas Meehan
>>> Head of Current Cataloguing
>>> Library Services
>>> University College London
>>> Gower Street
>>> London WC1E 6BT
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager