Yes, I was thinking you would create a content as text node, and just leave the value blank (or maybe use something like rdf:nil).
And the good thing about qnames is that you can use whatever you want. I always use "mads:" instead of "madsrdf:" for MADS, and would use "cat:" or "content:" for content as text. -Esme -- Esme Cowles <escow...@ucsd.edu> "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 09/14/2013, at 10:27 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Hmm. For the missing title would you create a content as text node with a > blank body? How does RDF handle empty strings?! > > (And I'm sorry to say that the qname for content as text is "cnt" - I'm going > to have to just get over the dis-ease that causes me ) > > kc > > On 9/14/13 6:47 AM, Esmé Cowles wrote: >> That looks like a nice way to handle many different cases where you have a >> textual value, and may also want to attach other triples about certainty, >> source, definiteness, etc. This would neatly handle the missing or >> definitely non-existent title problem. And it also avoids sub-optimal >> approaches like reification or having to create a new class for every >> possible value that you might want to annotate. >> >> -Esme >> -- >> Esme Cowles <escow...@ucsd.edu> >> >> "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 09/14/2013, at 9:02 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >>> This reminds me of a conversation (that did not come to a conclusion) on >>> the BIBFRAME list about the need to have a way to say that a bit of data is >>> transcribed, not transcribed, or supplied. And that reminds me of the >>> issues with SKOS labels, which is that if your data is text, not a URI, you >>> can't say anything further about that because text cannot be the subject of >>> a triple. And this was also the issue between BIBFRAME and Open Annotation >>> because BIBFRAME wanted to have annotations that are plain text, and Open >>> Annotation doesn't allow that for the reason that you can't further >>> describe the text. >>> >>> Which leads me to conclude that we would need to be using Content as Text >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/#ContentAsTextClass >>> >>> kc >>> >>> >>> On 9/13/13 8:57 AM, Stephen Hearn wrote: >>>> The MARC21 Authority format does have some negative assertions. Field 675 >>>> asserts that a source contains no relevant information (vs. 670 which >>>> asserts the source and its relevant information). Field 673 asserts that a >>>> title is not related to the entity in the 1XX (vs. 672 which asserts that >>>> the two are related). These aren't yet mapped in any detail to RDF or to >>>> MADS, but finding a way to map them could be a practical approach the >>>> question of negative assertions. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Karen Coyle <li...@kcoyle.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/13/13 5:51 AM, Esmé Cowles 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. >>>>>> >>>>> I'm bothered by the semantics of this... but maybe I'm being too rigid. >>>>> This states that the title is a URI, not a string, and that the URI is a >>>>> status, not the actual title. Your system will have a mixture of literal >>>>> strings that ARE titles and URIs that say something about titles, both as >>>>> objects of dc:title. The object of DC title needs to be the title. The >>>>> title COULD be a URI if the URI represents the title (e.g. a uniform title >>>>> in an authority file). >>>>> >>>>> Even if this turns out to be "legal" from an RDF point of view, it seems >>>>> that this would complicate title displays because you'd have to treat >>>>> these >>>>> URIs differently from the usual title literals, which you could just grab >>>>> and toss into a display. >>>>> >>>>> I'd probably leave title as the literal string, and create a new property >>>>> for title status that takes its value from a controlled list. In fact, >>>>> wouldn't we need something almost identical for anonymous works, to say >>>>> that there really isn't an author. (Cataloging knowledge lapse: we quit >>>>> using "Anonymous" as an author a while ago, right?) Given the open world >>>>> assumption, we are going to need to make these kinds of negative >>>>> statements. >>>>> >>>>> Also, remember that OWL does NOT constrain your data, it constrains only >>>>> the inferences that you can make about your data. OWL operates at the >>>>> ontology level, not the data level. (The OWL 2 documentation makes this >>>>> more clear, in my reading of it. I agree that the example you cite sure >>>>> looks like a constraint on the data... it's very confusing.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This book has no title: >>>>>> example:thisbook dc:title hasobject:false . >>>>>> >>>>> I don't think the title itself can be "hasobject:false". I think you need >>>>> to have a property like: xx:hasATitle and this can be true or false. But >>>>> I'm going to run this by the folks who developed dc in RDF and see what >>>>> they say. [Did so, they concur = value of title must be a title, not >>>>> information about title or status of title.] >>>>> >>>>> Note that dcterms title is defined specifically as having a literal value: >>>>> >>>>> Term Name: title >>>>> URI: http://purl.org/dc/terms/title >>>>> Label: Title >>>>> Definition: A name given to the resource. >>>>> Type of Term: Property <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-** >>>>> rdf-syntax-ns#Property<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property> >>>>> Refines: >>>>> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.**1/title<http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> >>>>> Version: >>>>> http://dublincore.org/usage/**terms/history/#titleT-002<http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#titleT-002> >>>>> Has Range: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-**schema#Literal<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Whereas dc 1.1 (the old 15 element set) is more open: >>>>> >>>>> URI: >>>>> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.**1/title<http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> >>>>> Label: Title >>>>> Definition: A name given to the resource. >>>>> Type of Term: Property <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-** >>>>> rdf-syntax-ns#Property<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property> >>>>> Version: >>>>> http://dublincore.org/usage/**terms/history/#title-006<http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/history/#title-006> >>>>> Note: A second property with the same name as this property has been >>>>> declared in the dcterms: namespace (http://purl.org/dc/terms/). See the >>>>> Introduction to the document "DCMI Metadata Terms" (http://dublincore.org/ >>>>> **documents/dcmi-terms/ <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/>) >>>>> for an explanation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I still think you are going outside of the definition of dc:title, which >>>>> is "The name of the resource." UNLESS you treat your "no title" as the >>>>> actual name of the resource, like "untitled" as the title of a painting. >>>>> But then we do have a serial with the actual title "Title varies" ... ;-) >>>>> >>>>> kc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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<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 >>>>>> >>>>>> t.mee...@ucl.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Karen Coyle >>>>> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>>>> skype: kcoylenet >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
