> I
> haven't thought this through but because BF combines the FRBR work and
> expression into a single entity, it may be safe to say that no BF
> instance can be an instanceOf more than one BF work.

Isn't every edition of 'Complete Works of Shakespeare' an instanceOf each
of the plays?

cheers
stuart
--
...let us be heard from red core to black sky

On 19 January 2018 at 08:49, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Joshua,
>
> Yes, as Nate says, those examples on my site are from quite a while ago,
> and come out of an early MARC -> BFv1 converter.
>
> I don't how BF decides what gets a URI vs. what is a blank node (and I
> find it to be heavy on blank nodes, which may reflect an XML development
> environment). I do know that the FRBR model treats each bibliographic
> entity (WEMI) as a top-level "thing". FRBR also explicitly rejects the
> idea that the whole WEMI can be expressed with a single URI.[0] That
> seems extreme, but in fact in FRBR there are many-to-many relationships
> between works and expressions, so it isn't a hierarchy but a graph. I
> haven't thought this through but because BF combines the FRBR work and
> expression into a single entity, it may be safe to say that no BF
> instance can be an instanceOf more than one BF work. However, any BF
> work can have more than one instance, so the "super-set" identifier
> becomes difficult.
>
> My gut feeling is that you should analyze your own data based on your
> own use cases and then posit a model - so that your ideas are clear
> before you step into the morass of BF assumptions (many of which do not
> appear to be directly articulated in the public documentation). If you
> find that your use cases are not served by BF, PLEASE bring that to the
> attention of the community working on BF and LD4P [1]. There are aspects
> of the BF development that may meet the needs of some but not all,
> because the range of experiences is still limited. More voices are a
> Good Thing.
>
> kc
> [0] For more than you ever wanted to know, look at part II of
> http://kcoyle.net/beforeAndAfter/index.html
> [1] https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/LD4P
>
> On 1/18/18 11:26 AM, Josh Welker wrote:
> > Okay, thanks all. I will set up the code to split the entities into
> > different files. Is there a rule of thumb for when a Thing needs to be
> > split out into a different file with its own URI vs being a blank node?
> For
> > instance, maybe blank nodes one level deep are okay but nested ones are
> > not. But I don't see the point of making a URI for the Title of a
> yearbook,
> > for instance, when virtually no one is ever going to reference the Title
> > outside the context of the larger Work or Instance.
> >
> > Joshua Welker
> > Information Technology Librarian
> > James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> > University of Central Missouri
> > Warrensburg, MO 64093
> > JCKL 2260
> > 660.543.8022
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Trail, Nate <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Just to note, that is a BIBFRAME1 vocab example. You can tell because
> the
> >> namespace is http://bibframe.org/vocab...
> >>
> >> You could certainly extract them and post them to their own end points,
> >> but you have to decide how to make the uris unique in your endpoint
> area:
> >> Karen's had a unique uri for the Work: http://id/test/C:\Users\
> >> deborah\Documents\OxygenXMLDeveloper\samples14107665 , but nothing for
> >> the Instance.
> >>
> >> If she wanted, she could have posted the Work part to
> >> http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/works/samples1410665
> >> And she could have posted the Instance part to
> http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/
> >> instances/samples1410665 (and changed the bf:Instance bf:instanceOf
> >> address to the new work URI).
> >>
> >>         <bf:instanceOf rdf:resource="http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/works/
> >> samples1410665 "/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BY the way, the bf2 version is comparable here (if I'm right that the
> >> number is the LC voyager bib id):
> >>
> >> Id.loc.gov/tools/bibframe/compare-id/full-rdf?find=14107665 or
> >> Id.loc.gov/tools/bibframe/compare-id/full-ttlf?find=14107665
> >> It's also available for extraction and use  here:
> >> http://lx2.loc.gov:210/LCDB?query=rec.id=14107665&
> recordSchema=bibframe2a&
> >> maximumRecords=1
> >>
> >> Making things even more interesting, this one also has embedded Work
> >> descriptions :
> >> <bf:Work rdf:about="http://bibframe.example.org/14107665#Work740-46" >
> >>         <rdfs:label >Blest pair of sirens.</rdfs:label>
> >>
> >> They are pretty skimpy but could be used as stub descriptions and given
> >> their own identity (uri) until such time as they can be reconciled to an
> >> existing description or be more fully cataloged to stand on their own.
> >>
> >> Nate
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> Nate Trail
> >> Network Development & MARC Standards Office
> >> LS/ABA/NDMSO
> >> LA308, Mail Stop 4402
> >> Library of Congress
> >> Washington DC 20540
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >> Josh Welker
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:03 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
> >>
> >> Stephen,
> >>
> >> I've looked at Karen Coyle's examples in the past. They are extremely
> >> helpful for figuring out how to structure the BIBFRAME record, but my
> >> question is more about how the BIBFRAME model interfaces with the
> semantic
> >> web as a whole. As you mentioned, Karen's examples, like the LC examples
> >> Nate mentioned, have both Work and Instance objects at the top level.
> To my
> >> (limited) understanding, that makes them suitable for ingestion into a
> >> local system for indexing but not necessarily as URI endpoints. For
> >> example, if I were to reference http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/sr.rdf.xml
> in
> >> another RDF document, how would an application know if I am referencing
> the
> >> Work or the Instance?
> >>
> >> Joshua Welker
> >> Information Technology Librarian
> >> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> >> University of Central Missouri
> >> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> >> JCKL 2260
> >> 660.543.8022
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM, McDonald, Stephen <
> >> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Karen Coyle has some examples on her page:
> http://kcoyle.net/bibframe/.
> >>> Your option #2 appears to be similar to the output in her examples,
> >>> although her examples do not include the Item level.  You can also
> >>> find conversion programs on the BibFrame website which will let you
> >>> convert MARC records and see what they look like in BibFrame RDF/XML.
> >>>
> >>>                                                 Steve McDonald
> >>>
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> >>> Josh Welker
> >>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:08 PM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
> >>>
> >>> I guess I am trying to figure out what the well-defined view looks
> >>> like. I can't find examples that contain Work, Instance, and Item
> >>> within the same RDF document at the same URI. In fact, the examples
> >>> section on the LC BIBFRAME 2.0 website is blank, and the links for
> >> BIBFRAME 1.0 are all dead.
> >>> I certainly am not trying to reinvent anything, which is why I am
> >>> posting here.
> >>>
> >>> Joshua Welker
> >>> Information Technology Librarian
> >>> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> >>> University of Central Missouri
> >>> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> >>> JCKL 2260
> >>> 660.543.8022
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:00 AM, McDonald, Stephen <
> >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> BibFrame already has an RDF view which is well-defined.  Are you
> >>>> trying to come up with your own RDF model for BibFrame data?
> >>>>
> >>>>                                         Steve McDonald
> >>>>                                         [log in to unmask]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >>>> Of Josh Welker
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:28 AM
> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a question about how to model a resource expressed in BIBFRAME.
> >>>> We are digitizing some unique collections. Ideally, I'd like to have
> >>>> one URI like http://example.org/myuri that returns one RDF document
> >>>> containing data about the Work, the Instance, and the Item. There
> >>>> are two ways I could do
> >>>> this:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Use Work as the parent type and include the Instance as a child
> >>>> blank node using the Work.expressionOf property, and then include
> >>>> the Item as a second-level child node using the Instance.hasItem
> >> property.
> >>> Example:
> >>>>
> >>>> bf:Work:
> >>>>   bf:title: [title node here]
> >>>>   bf:hasInstance:
> >>>>     bf:Instance:
> >>>>       bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
> >>>>       bf:hasItem:
> >>>>         bf:Item:
> >>>>           bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Use some parent container class like rdf:Description and include
> >>>> the Work, Instance, and item as immediate children blank nodes of
> >>>> that container. Example:
> >>>>
> >>>> rdf:Description:
> >>>>   bf:Work:
> >>>>     bf:title: [title node here]
> >>>>   bf:Instance:
> >>>>     bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
> >>>>   bf:Item
> >>>>     bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. If neither 1 nor 2 are acceptable, I could have separate URI
> >>>> endpoints for the Work, Instance, and Item. This has the advantage
> >>>> of using less blank nodes:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://example.org/myuri_Work
> >>>> http://example.org/myuri_Instance
> >>>> http://example.org/myuri_Item
> >>>>
> >>>> I really prefer option 3 the least, but I am very uncertain between
> >>>> 1 and 2. Thoughts on which is best practice? If 2, what should I use
> >>>> as the container class? And in any case, how much should I worry
> >>>> about the proliferation of blank nodes?
> >>>>
> >>>> Joshua Welker
> >>>> Information Technology Librarian
> >>>> James C. Kirkpatrick Library
> >>>> University of Central Missouri
> >>>> Warrensburg, MO 64093
> >>>> JCKL 2260
> >>>> 660.543.8022
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: +1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>