On 6/21/12 12:10 PM, Ben Companjen wrote: > That is not a property, but a class.
Aargh! Sorry, I thought I was in the property list. Obviously not awake yet. (Just did a fairly smooth but long 24-hour door-to-door Europe to California trip. I want the transporter to be invented NOW!) This could be another reason why we didn't use series. However, as for the series property in the RDA ontology: http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/296.rdf This is "series statement" from the ontology for RDA, Resource Description and Access, the upcoming new cataloging rules that will be used in the US and other countries. It is called "series statement" because it may consist of a complex data statement, including author, series title, and enumeration. It can be used with literals. (The term "statement" in RDA is not the same as "statement" in RDF, which can be confusing.) but.... > where oledition is a prefix for<http://openlibrary.org/editions/> and > I disregard that we would probably want to link Works and Editions > (are they both bibo:Books? One of them? Neither?) :) > > I couldn't find a suitable property in the ontologies at > http://purl.org/spar (although it has the FRBR aligned bibliographic > ontology, which may be of interest for OL for other properties). There > is http://rdvocab.info/RDARelationshipsWEMI/inSeriesWork to relate an > RDA Work to a series, but the property's range is undefined. I don't > think it is supposed to be used for Literals, though. Note that very few properties in RDVocab have been given a range... yet. In traditional cataloging, all of the date elements defined in the cataloging rules take literals as values; in RDA there is still work ongoing to determine how (if it is possible) to define a set of properties that can have both literal and non-literal values. In the rules themselves it is often stated that you can use either a textual description *or* an identifier, but there's nothing specific about how that would be done, or even of what might be found when the identifier is resolved. (Heck, the identifiers do not even have to be URIs.) So what you see there at rdvocab.info is somewhat embryonic because it's a first attempt to define traditional library data in RDF. (Some of us think that defining traditional library data in RDF is not only not feasible, but it isn't even a good idea.) Another example is from ISBD (International Standard Bibliographic Description) which has "has series and multipart monographic resource area" http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/show/id/2146.rdf defined as: "Relates a resource to a statement including the title proper of a series or multipart monographic resource, the parallel title of a series or multipart monographic resource, the other title information of a series or multipart monographic resource, the parallel other title information of a series or multipart monographic resource, the statement of responsibility relating to a series or multipart monographic resource, the parallel statement of responsibility relating to a series or multipart monographic resource, the international standard number of a series or multipart monographic resource, and the numbering within a series or multipart monographic resource." Just from this, it might be best to avoid this one for its conceptual semantics. One reason to have a series property that is a literal is that at the time you create the bibliographic description you may not have handy an identifier for the series that is listed on the book. Requiring the creation of an identifier for that series could be impractical, so it makes sense to me to allow people to record the series as a literal, and that that is preferable to not recording it at all if a URI is required. This supports the suggestion (was it Alan's?) that these literal series statements might be considered notes; additional information about the book, but not really expressed as a relationship between resources. As for "Work series" in RDA -- I have no idea what is meant, and will have to find where in the rules it is described. It seems odd to me. As does much of what appears in library cataloging rules. kc > > Perhaps it is time to create http://openlibrary.org/type/series and > let (bot) users link works or editions to series objects. > The other possibilities I see are disregarding the series information > in RDF, using a more general property like dc:relation and creating a > new property ol:series. > > Ben >> >> kc > -- Karen Coyle [email protected] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet _______________________________________________ Ol-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.archive.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ol-discuss To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to [email protected]
