Thanks, Kevin. My question, originally, was whether the typing assigned 
can be seen as "OR" or "AND". I know that you can define SKOS entities 
as objects and as properties and these are not seen as being in 
conflict, but SKOS is very clear in defining this, making sure that it 
is open. In the LoC case, it is an OWL declaration of ObjectProperty and 
the class Role, a kind of punning. It seems to me that all of the 
declarations are always attached to the subject, and therefore using 
them as objects would trigger inferencing inconsistencies (OWL tends to 
be strict). Have you tried that? Or are you eschewing inferencing, as 
one often does.

In any case, the big question was using the relators as properties and 
the object as a string. There are folks who need to do that, and it is a 
shame that there isn't an unconstrained version that would allow this, 
since the LoC list is the most complete of all lists we can find. 
Declaration as an rdf:Property would do that, and that would entail less 
"rule" on the property definition, while users could define their own 
more strict rules for their application. Again, this brings up how far 
you can go with punning - adding rdf:Property to the mix would probably 
just make things more confusing.

I vote for simpler and less constrained at the vocabulary level, leaving 
constraints to the application profile level, so everyone can have the 
usage they need.

kc


On 10/20/23 11:23 AM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> Steve is not wrong, but I think you are talking about two different things.
>
> Using a string with a Relators property would not conform to how they have been defined at ID.LOC.GOV.  So, the answer to your specific question is: no, it is not our expectation Relator URIs would be used as properties with the object of the triple being either a URI or a string.  Only URIs.
>
> But the Relators URIs have also been defined such that they can be used as a Property or as an Object, which is what Steve was driving at.  We use them as Objects in Bibframe, hence their (additional) typing as a bf:Role.
>
> HTH,
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin Ford
> Network Development and MARC Standards Office
> Library of Congress
> Washington, DC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 11:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
>
> CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on links.
>
> Steve, the list doesn't need to hear this, but you are not correct here.
> The relators are defined as owl:ObjectProperties (not just "properties") which means that they cannot take text as objects. However, I want LoC to confirm that, because this is their doing.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/17/23 8:17 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
>> It is an inherent problem when creating a vocabulary--should this set of traits be properties or types? Whichever choice you make, you face the problem that other vocabularies may choose differently. I believe this vocabulary defines relators as properties. But they also want to show how the terms are related to terms in OWL and BIBFRAME where they are defined as types.
>>
>>                                        Steve McDonald
>>                                        [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Coyle
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:40 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
>>> declarations
>>>
>>> tl;dr: Does LoC intend that its relator properties be used with both
>>> "thing" and "string" objects?
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/10/23 8:02 AM, McDonald, Stephen wrote:
>>>> That is not correct.  The statement
>>>>     <rdfs:subPropertyOf
>>>>     rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
>>>>
>>>> is a single predicate-object statement, enclosed within angle brackets.
>>>> The following statement
>>>> <rdf:type
>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
>>>>
>>>> is also separate statement, enclosed within angle brackets. The OWL
>>> statement is not part of the subPropertyOf statement. The next
>>> statement is also a separate statement. So we have three statements:
>>>> subPropertyOf: DC contributor
>>>> type: owl ObjectProperty
>>>> type: BIBFRAME role
>>>>
>>>> The term you were looking up is the implied subject of the
>>>> statements,
>>> making these RDF triples.
>>>>                                      Steve McDonald
>>>>                                      [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 5:36 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking at the LoC relators at id.loc.gov, and am trying to
>>>>> understand the implications of the multiple declarations for relator terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf
>>>>> rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor"/>
>>>>> <rdf:type
>>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ObjectProperty"/>
>>>>> <rdf:type
>>>>> rdf:resource="http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe/Role"/>
>>>>>
>>>>> dct:contributor is not an Object Property; there is no object type
>>>>> given, so I suppose it is de facto an Annotation Property. I read
>>>>> the next statement as narrowing, so at statement 2 we have:
>>>>>       subproperty of dct:contributor AND an owl:ObjectProperty
>>>>>
>>>>> If my reading is correct, it would be a violation of this to use
>>>>> the relator with a string rather than a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Stop me here if I'm wrong.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the 3rd statement appears to say that the relator is a
>>>>> bf:Role, which is a BIBFRAME-specific class. I can't wrap my head
>>>>> around the functionality of this statement and would love a brief explanation.
>>>>> I'm undoubtedly not into BIBFRAME deep enough to grok this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, my reading is that each relator is ALL THREE OF THESE; this
>>>>> is an AND not at OR. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for any help,
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_
>>>>> BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMc
>>>>> J39slRBrXwrxVIJV$
>>>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>>>
>>>>> Caution: This message originated from outside of the Tufts
>>>>> University organization. Please exercise caution when clicking
>>>>> links or opening attachments. When in doubt, email the TTS Service
>>>>> Desk at [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> or call them directly at 617-627-3376.
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ
>>> !eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39s
>>> lRBrXwrxVIJV$
>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!EDx7F7x-0XSOB8YS_BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39slRBrXwrxVIJV$

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
http://kcoyle.net