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  January 2014

CODE4LIB January 2014

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element Vocabularies

From:

Jon Phipps <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:26:19 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for taking such an interest!

Regarding your questions and concerns:

'slash' vs. 'hash' URIs:
As a matter of design, we coin URIs for retrieval of information about the
resource identified by the URI by machines, not humans. The most current
formal rules[1] state that retrieving a 'slash' fragment should return just
that fragment when resolved. We're currently breaking that rule by always
returning the entire vocabulary, as if it was indeed using hash URIs and
will fix it in the next few weeks. An example of such a fragment (generated
by the Open Metadata Registry for
http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/w/P10001)
is here:
http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/15304.rdf

We believe, as a matter of good design, that URIs coined for large
vocabularies should minimize retrieval bandwidth, particularly since it's
highly unlikely that the entire vocabulary will (or should) be retrieved
when the properties are used individually as part of an application
profile. The entire vocabulary can always be acquired by requesting it from
the vocabulary's namespace URI:
http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/w/

Lexical (readable, but not semantic) URIs:
One of the most common misuses of vocabularies is the misunderstanding of
the semantics of the property identified by the URI based on the user's
personal, colloquial, or domain-specific interpretation of the semantics of
the URI (dc:title is the one I've seem misused most often). So we believe
that good vocabulary design _should_ obscure the semantics requiring that
the actual vocabulary documentation be viewed by a human.

The other problem is that the 'semantics' are most often broadly identified
with the lexical label used in the URI. Vocabularies, no matter how stable
semantically, _will_ evolve and that evolution often results in a change to
the label(s), even if the semantics communicated by the URI don't change.

And then there's the issue of spelling (British English vs. American
English) and language. Should we assume that the entire world must use, and
_understand_ English in order to effectively use a vocabulary? We don't
think so.

To at least partially address this we have coined multiple URIs for each
property, as explained here:
http://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/e/
"All RDA URIs have both an immutable canonical form and a 'readable',
lexical form, which is subject to change (changes will be redirected)." The
lexical URIs follow the naming convention you identified and are largely
based on the current English (British) label.

Content-type: application/octet-stream:
We just got the server (nginx) setup yesterday and we haven't yet set the
mime types correctly. Again we'll fix that very shortly.

Jon Phipps
Metadata Management Associates
Open Metadata Registry

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/


Jon



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Dan Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm still pretty new at this linked data thing, but I find it strange
> that RDA element properties URIs such as
> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50034 and
> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50209 both return the same HTML
> page in a browser. Would it not have been more usable if the
> properties used hash-URIs that could have located the particular
> property on the particular page (e.g.
> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a#P50034)?
>
> Also, a plain "curl" request returns Content-type:
> application/octet-stream -- but it's pretty clearly Turtle, so I think
> that should be Content-type: text/turtle
>
> I would have liked to see more meaningful URIs--like
> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/agent/addressOf instead of
> http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/a/P50209--as meaningful URIs seem a
> lot more approachable to this non-machine, but I guess that would have
> been a lot more work.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Diane Hillmann
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Folks:
> >
> > I hope this announcement will be of general interest (and apologies if
> you
> > receive more than one).
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: JSC Secretary <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:23 AM
> > Subject: [rules] Publication of the RDA Element Vocabularies
> > <snip recipients>
> >
> > RDA colleagues,
> >
> > See the announcement below, also posted on the JSC website.  Feel free to
> > share this information with your colleagues.
> >
> > Regards, Judy Kuhagen
> >
> > = = = = =
> >
> > The Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA (JSC), Metadata
> > Management Associates, and ALA Publishing (on behalf of the co-publishers
> > of RDA) are pleased to announce that the RDA elements and relationship
> > designators have been published in the Open Metadata Registry (OMR) as
> > Resource Description Framework (RDF) element sets suitable for linked
> data
> > and semantic Web applications.
> >
> > The elements include versions "unconstrained" by Functional Requirements
> > for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for
> Authority
> > Data (FRAD), the standard library models underpinning RDA, that are
> > intended for use in applications by non-RDA communities.
> >
> > The published version of the RDA element sets builds on several years of
> > work by the DCMI/RDA Task Group. Earlier versions developed by the Group
> > will remain available, but will be deprecated for further development and
> > use, and redirected to the new version.
> >
> > Gordon Dunsire, Chair of the JSC, said "The RDA element set is a
> > distillation of modern approaches to resource discovery supporting rich
> > descriptions of library and cultural heritage materials and detailed
> > relationships between them at international level. The JSC has recently
> > established a working group to assist in extending and refining the RDA
> > elements, and hopes that they will be useful to other communities,
> ranging
> > from close neighbours in library linked data to the global networks of
> > general search."
> >
> > Diane Hillmann of Metadata Management Associates said "We are extremely
> > pleased to be able to make this new version available now in fully
> > published form, ready for implementation by libraries and vendors. We
> look
> > forward to discussing the important features available in this version
> with
> > our colleagues at the upcoming ALA Midwinter meetings and beyond."
> >
> > James Hennelly, Managing Editor of RDA Toolkit, said "This is an
> important
> > update to the RDA Registry and a crucial step in the advancement of RDA's
> > mission to be a standard that is accessible to both cataloging
> > professionals, through the toolkit and print and ebook publications, and
> to
> > application developers seeking to make use of library data, through the
> > Registry's expression of the RDA elements and vocabularies."
> >
> > The basic RDA element set namespace is rdaregistry.info and it contains
> a
> > total of over 1600 properties and classes. Elements are distributed in
> sets
> > (the number of elements in each set is given in brackets):
> > Agent properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/81.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/81.html>(226)
> > Expression properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/78.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/78.html>(236)
> > Item properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/80.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/80.html>(54)
> > Manifestation properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/79.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/79.html>(213)
> > Work properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/77.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/77.html>(232)
> > Unconstrained properties
> > [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/82.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/82.html>(698)
> > Classes [http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/83.html]<
> http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/83.html>(8)
> >
> > Follow the links to see details of each element set.
> >
> > Questions or comments on the content of the element sets may be addressed
> > to the Chair of the JSC, Gordon Dunsire [[log in to unmask]].
> Questions
> > and comments on the encoding of the vocabularies or on the Open Metadata
> > Registry may be addressed to Diane Hillmann [[log in to unmask]].
>

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

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