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:
>
> http://vocab.org/frbr/frbr-core-20050729
Excellent!
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
-
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/bearman/01bearman.html
Quick suggestion - add the following to the page:
<link rel = "meta" type="application/rdf+xml" title = "FRBR Schema"
href="
http://purl.org/vocab/frbr/frbr-core-20050729.rdf" />
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 ...
<sidenote>
xmlns:vann="
http://purl.org/vocab/vann/"
VANN: A vocabulary for annotating vocabulary descriptions
This Version
http://purl.org/vocab/vann/vann-vocab-20050401 [HTML] [RDF]
Latest Version
http://purl.org/vocab/vann/
Previous Version
http://purl.org/vocab/vann/vann-vocab-20040305
Contributors
Ian Davis
</sidenote>
> 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
http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/rbo . 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="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
> xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns="http://purl.org/NET/xbiblio/rbo#"
> xml:base="http://purl.org/net/darcusb/meta/">
>
> <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 & 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.
[[
http://purl.org/dc/terms/issued
Label Issued [ en-US ]
Definition Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the
resource. [ en-US ]
]]
--
http://dublincore.org/dcregistry/detailServlet?
reqType=detail&item=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fdc%2Fterms%2Fissued
<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
-
http://dublincore.org/documents/1998/02/03/name-representation/
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.
]]
--
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_givenname
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...
<foaf:Person>
<rdf:value>Jim Gettys</rdf:value> <!-- default value for apps that
don't know foaf -->
<foaf:givenname>Jim</foaf:givenname>
<foaf:surname>Gettys</foaf:surname>
</foaf:Person>
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.
>
> http://xbiblio.sourceforge.net./citeproc.html
> http://xbiblio.sourceforge.net./csl.html
>
> 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.
>
+1
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Tue Aug 02 2005 - 13:21:22 EDT