Core Bibliographic Conceptual Models Interest Group

 View Only
last person joined: yesterday 

✉ Send an email to ALA-CoreBibliographicConceptualModels@ConnectedCommunity.org to start a discussion or share a file.

About this Group

👐 Anyone can view all content in the group, but only people who join it can post to it. Anyone can join to participate.


Purpose: Provides a dedicated forum for the discussion of conceptual models, such as IFLA-LRM and BIBFRAME 2.0, that serve as the basis for current cataloging standards or are expected to provide a foundation for future cataloging standards in a Linked Open Data environment. Topics of special interest include: theoretical foundations of bibliographical conceptual models; the implementation of bibliographical conceptual models in information systems (especially Linked Data-based systems); extensions of current conceptual models; ontologies and conceptual models used in GLAM institutions.

Related Groups:

This interest group is part of Core's Metadata and Collections Section.

Portraits of three Core members with caption Become a Member: Find Your Home: Core.

 

Possible to express relationship to Nomen resource using RDA/RDF properties with no range?

  • 1.  Possible to express relationship to Nomen resource using RDA/RDF properties with no range?

    Posted Nov 18, 2021 05:21 PM

    Hello all: 

    A group of colleagues and I were looking at the RDA element "has series statement" [Toolkit link] recently. We were considering using this element in a linked-data implementation. An initial question was, "Would the value of this element (in an LD implementation, the object of a triple with rdam:P30106 as predicate) be a resource typed as rdac:Nomen? Looking at [Recording methods], and considering a series statement which is a string-structured or unstructured-we saw the following statements:

    • "a structured description of an RDA Entity is a string that is a kind of Nomen"
    • "an unstructured description of an RDA Entity is a string that is a kind of Nomen"
     Based on this, it seemed to us that a linked-data implementation of "(has) series statement" might look something like the following (Turtle syntax; use of blank node versus IRI as Nomen resource is somewhat arbitrary):

    <> a rdac:C10007 ; # Manifestation
    rdam:P30106 _:01 . # series statement
    _:01 a rdac:C10012 ; # Nomen
    rdan:80068 "[series statement string]" . # Nomen string

     BUT there are a few details which make me wonder if such an implementation would actually be correct, in terms of the RDA/RDF ontology, intended use of RDA/RDF properties, etc.

     One is the fact that rdam:P30106 has no rdfs:range.

    Another is the fact that Toolkit guidance for series statement includes…

    "Recording an IRI
    This recording method is not applicable to this element."

    …which would seem to me to indicate that the element (the RDF property rdam:P30106) should not be used to express a relationship between a resource which has rdf:type Manifestation and one which has rdf:type Nomen.

    Any thoughts on whether use of rdam:P30106 as per the above code snippet would be "correct"? Thanks all!

    Sincerely,

    Benjamin Riesenberg



    ------------------------------
    Benjamin Riesenberg
    they/them
    Metadata Librarian
    University of Washington
    ------------------------------