Hi again Karen:
You mentioned previously that...
>> 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.
...and we discussed briefly the use of RDA unconstrained properties, which meet the need for rdf:Properties which take string values, but are not completely aligned with the LC terms, are missing some granular terms that LC has, etc.
I did not know at that time that an Alignment from unconstrained properties to MARC Code List for Relators [1] is available at the RDA Registry! I figured you might not either, so I'm sharing here. This might be helpful in selecting RDAU properties where these meet needs.
[1] https://www.rdaregistry.info/Aligns/alignUnc2MRC.html
Benjamin Riesenberg
=========
they/them
Metadata Librarian, Cataloging and Metadata Services, University of Washington Libraries
📧 [log in to unmask]
☎️ 34675 / (206) 543-4675
=========
Monday on campus
Tuesday on campus
Wednesday remote
Thursday on campus and/or remote
Friday remote
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Thursday, 26 October, 2023 07:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Loc V RDA relators
Thanks, Ben. I was given to understand that there are fewer RDA relators than in the LoC list. I did a very crude comparison, and got this:
RDA has 210
LoC has 294
(I took only the RDA properties with the term "agent" in their definition, dropped the "has" properties from RDA and just used the "is"
ones, since inverse properties are included for most or all)
I haven't looked at the comparison in detail, but there are ones that this particular group wants, like "thesis opponent" that I don't find in the RDA list.
No, I have no idea why they aren't the same.
kc
On 10/23/23 10:50 AM, Benjamin Riesenberg wrote:
> Hi all--Karen mentions:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Could RDA/RDF unconstrained properties be helpful for such use cases? I'd expect this to also be a fairly complete list.
>
> Looking at a very small, random sample of relator terms vs. RDA unconstrained properties to get some idea of coverage:
>
> Abridger /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/abr_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOrBhZE3C$ >> has abridger /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60394_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOnQQtUm2$ Enacting jurisdiction /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/enj_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOpf_HMfv$ >> (perhaps has enacting government /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60096_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOgA7RFuy$ isn't quite the same thing, and so no
> coverage here?) Inscriber /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/ins_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOt8c4UCG$ >> has inscriber /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60460_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOgmi7Tlg$ Libelee-appellant /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/let_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOj1LiBpp$ >> (might not have coverage here--I only see
> has appellant /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60457_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOt8kh69o$ ) Music programmer /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/mup_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOtPZCaNx$ >> has music programmer /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60894_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOrQbqO4W$ Redaktor /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/red_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOiwbxYC_$ >> (I don't see any coverage here...)
> Research team head /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/rth_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOsYywMxH$ >> (lacking a direct equivalent - I only see
> has research supervisor /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P61098_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOiEvTdXT$ ) Storyteller /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/stl_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOrDm8MQ5$ >> has storyteller /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60154_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOqwkPcvp$ Visual effects provider /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/vfx_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOrpYxtx3$ >> has visual effects provider /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60748_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOtUGojKo$ Writer of preface /
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/wpr_
> _;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs
> 1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOkSNYDYN$ >> (note that RDAU 'has writer of preface' is
> now deprecated, I'd guess as part of the 3R LRM alignment work, so no
> coverage for this relator)
>
> Looking at modelling for RDAU properties--RDF/XML downloaded from RDA Registry at https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOlVYXvlJ$ , serialized here as Turtle for readability:
>
> # take for example 'has abridger'
> # omitting non-English labels, definition, and scope notes here
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60394__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOnQQtUm2$ > a rdf:Property ;
> rdfs:label "has abridger"@en ;
> rdakit:seeAlso <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60434__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOhdFYycG$ > ;
> reg:lexicalAlias <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/abridger.en__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOq9vyC5R$ > ;
> reg:status <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://metadataregistry.org/uri/RegStatus/1001__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOpROupf5$ > ;
> rdfs:isDefinedBy <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOmtbHX6L$ > ;
> rdfs:subPropertyOf <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60398__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOkEdFzBL$ > ;
> owl:inverseOf <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://rdaregistry.info/Elements/u/P60622__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOqNvifmf$ > ;
> skos:definition "Relates a resource to an agent who contributes to a resource by shortening a resource of a related resource without changing the general meaning or manner of presentation."@en ;
> skos:scopeNote "Substantial modification that results in the creation of a new resource is excluded."@en .
>
> Benjamin Riesenberg
> =========
> they/them
> Metadata Librarian, Cataloging and Metadata Services, University of
> Washington Libraries
> 📧 [log in to unmask]
> ☎️ 34675 / (206) 543-4675
> =========
> Monday on campus
> Tuesday on campus
> Wednesday remote
> Thursday on campus and/or remote
> Friday remote
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of
> CODE4LIB automatic digest system
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 8:56 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: CODE4LIB Digest - 20 Oct 2023 to 23 Oct 2023 - Special issue
> (#2023-240)
>
> There are 5 messages totaling 18361 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
> 1. [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple declarations (2)
> 2. Deduping with finesse (2)
> 3. Digital Initiatives Symposium 2024
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:19:49 -0700
> From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> declarations
>
> 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-0XSOB8Y
>>>>>> S
>>>>>> _
>>>>>> BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRD
>>>>>> M
>>>>>> c
>>>>>> 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_
>>>> B
>>>> Q
>>>> !eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ3
>>>> 9
>>>> s
>>>> 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!
>> eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ39sl
>> R
>> BrXwrxVIJV$
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!hMnOycGd
> oW5lta2TAs4r8dCWW5DvQGKVVt20n0IhK5XAaQZ7F6encZ6qO0T-omjyptWDC4D77H1ngO
> KNjKM$
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 08:05:46 -0700
> From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [External] [CODE4LIB] Question about multiple
> declarations
>
> Ah, forget the first paragraph. I just found the section in the (very
> confusing - OWL DL? 2? ugh) documentation where they specifically
> allow ObjectProperty and class. But I do want to continue (or at least
> emphasize) the question of constraining the relators to ObjectProperties. I honestly do think that such a choice should be up to the folks using the vocabulary, based on their needs. If BIBFRAME wants to require IRIs as objects that's fine. But I see the LoC vocabularies as not being limited to BIBFRAME - or at least, I think that would be a good approach.
>
> YMMV.
>
> kc
>
> On 10/23/23 7:19 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> 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-0XSOB8
>>>>>>> YS_
>>>>>>> BQ!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiR
>>>>>>> DMc
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> !eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ
>>>>> 39s
>>>>> 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_B
>>> Q!eHPXLOmgHd34Nkhl7hC1y1HksSXx1U6hRMICVD7hgM2VshIAMS7KC8rwlhpiRDMcJ3
>>> 9slRBrXwrxVIJV$
>>>
>>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://kcoyle.net__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!lxl9Xq8UBlph0d355-78XXO9w1z5XVQeCwtVPurFV7TsD3j2tnegDs1Y96UqDbwHzf4VOuHqaqbc$
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|
