Re: bibliographic issues

From: Eric Miller <>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:24:38 -0400

On Jul 29, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote:

> Hi,
> Just subscribed to the list after chatting with earlier today with
> Alf about some related issues.

Welcome! :)

> Re: recent thread entitled "examples of linking bibliographic RDF
> to articles" I wanted to mention a few related things going on.
> I've been chatting with Ian Davis, Richard Newman and Leigh Dodds
> (who is overseeing Ingenta move to an RDF backend) about the need
> for better RDF bibliographic ontologies. One product of that
> discussion is an OWL representation of the FRBR, an initial draft
> (still in need of documentation) of which is here:


I spent some working on a FRBR representation in RDF in the context
of a DLIB article I helped write a few years ago [1]. While I'm
afraid the machines I was doing this work on have long since been
removed from the web, I've long believed that there is a powerful and
important synergy in the representation FRBR in RDF. I think you're
certainly on the right track. Thanks for the pointer!

[1] A Common Model to Support Interoperable Metadata

Quick suggestion - add the following to the page:

<link rel = "meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title = "FRBR Schema"
href="" />

so it's easier to get this vocabulary via applications like piggy-
bank. :) And bonus points for describing the Ontology! :) A quick
inspection takes me down another rabbit hole ...


VANN: A vocabulary for annotating vocabulary descriptions

This Version [HTML] [RDF]
Latest Version
Previous Version
     Ian Davis

> Leigh, Richard and I have also talked about a more grounded
> representation that fills a role more like MODS, and so is
> significantly richer than bibtex-in-RDF (which always was a
> mistake). My knowledge of RDF is thin, but I've been experimenting
> with an XSLT that transforms MODS XML into nicely normalized RDF
> that's currently looking like this:

Points for grounding your terms in URI space, but I get 404 for . As such, I'm not exactly sure how
the instance data you outline here maps back to the FRBR model you
mentioned above.

> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:xs=""
> xmlns:foaf=""
> xmlns:prism=""
> xmlns:dc=""
> xmlns:rdf=""
> xmlns=""
> xml:base="">
> <Article rdf:about="references/Gettys1990">
> <authorList rdf:parseType="Collection">
> <!-- this will probably need to be a sequence -->
> <foaf:Person rdf:about="people#gettys-j"/>
> <foaf:Person rdf:about="people#karlton-p"/>
> <foaf:Person rdf:about="people#mcgregor-s"/>
> </authorList>
> <dc:title>The X Window System, Version 11</dc:title>
> <prism:isPartOf rdf:resource="info:sici:3452-2375(1990)20:S2%
> 3C%3E1.0.TX%3B2-V"/>
> <dc:description>A technical overview of the X11
> functionality. This is an update of the X10 TOG paper
> by Scheifler &amp; Gettys.</dc:description>
> <citekey>Gettys1990</citekey>
> <published>
> <date>
> <year>1990</year>
> </date>
> </published>

I don't think the above means what you think it means :)

dcterms:issued may be closer.

Label Issued [ en-US ]
Definition Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the
resource. [ en-US ]

<snip />

> <foaf:Person rdf:about="people#gettys-j">
> <foaf:givenname>Jim</foaf:givenname>
> <foaf:family_name>Gettys</foaf:family_name>
> </foaf:Person>

Representing people's names is easy to do, but not easy to do well. I
find Andrew Waugh's work to still be quite handy in identifying
issues associated with representing people's names.

Representing People's Names in Dublin Core

And while FOAF provides various options per se, it pretty much relies
on folks to make up their own mind.

A number of naming constructs are under development to provide naming
substructure; draft properties include foaf:firstName,
foaf:givenname, and foaf:surname. These are not currently stable or
consistent; see the issue tracker for design discussions, status and
ongoing work on rationalising the FOAF naming machinery.

Getting various content providers to agree on *a few* properties when
it comes to describing peoples for bibliographic description,
however, is a small but useful step. For the content providers that
are reading this list, I'm wondering if the following might be a
simple core folks could agree on...

  <rdf:value>Jim Gettys</rdf:value> <!-- default value for apps that
don't know foaf -->

Alf, Matthew? others? What do you think?

> As a I said, just an experiment, but am hoping Leigh and gang can
> help me come up with something better.
> Finally, I wanted to respond to this notion that I see repeated a
> lot: that citation metadata in RDF will only ever work if it allows
> transparent mapping to existing applications (bibtex, endnote, etc.).
> I actually think that while this may be true in the short-term,
> it's the wrong way to think about the problem long term. What the
> world needs is a native RDF citation processor. I happen to think
> my (currently XML focused) citeproc could be a good basis on which
> to do that.
> So think easy XML style language, support for any text-based
> document format (latex, wordml, openoffice, docbook), and
> distributed RDF metadata.
> Existing bibliographic applications (Endnote, RefWorks, etc.) are
> simply not very good, and I think we need to rethink the
> possibilities presented with contemporary standards and technologies.


eric miller                    
semantic web activity lead     
w3c world wide web consortium  
Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 13:21:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT