DCMI/RDA Task Group Report, DC-2010 Pittsburgh

History, Rationale, and Remaining Work

The RDA Vocabularies

2DC-2010

A brief historyA structural tour, including:

Rationale and decision makingUse of domains and rangesPotential for extension

Moving towards completionWhat we’ve learned

Setting the Stage

10/22/10

3DC-2010

A Brief History

It all started in

London, the last

day of April 2007

10/22/10

4DC-2010

The participants agreed that DCMI and the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of RDA should work together to:Develop an RDA Element VocabularyExpose RDA Value VocabulariesDevelop an RDA Application Profile, based on

FRBR and FRADThe first two are largely complete; the third is

started

What Was Accomplished

10/22/10

5DC-2010

Property and value vocabularies registered on the Open Metadata Registry (formerly the NSDL Registry): http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

Used RDF Schema (RDFS), Simple Knowledge Organisation System (SKOS) and Web Ontology Language (OWL)Registry provides human and machine usable

interfacesAll vocabularies have change history and

versioning capabilities

Structure: Rationale & Decisions

10/22/10

http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

6DC-2010

We used the Semantic Web as our “mental model”Wanted to create a “bridge” between XML and RDF

to support innovation in the library community as a whole, not just those at the cutting edge or the trailing edge

We registered the FRBR entities as classes in a ‘FRBR in RDA’ vocabulary, to enable specific relationships between RDA properties and FRBR

IFLA has followed suit using the Open Metadata Registry to add the ‘official’ FRBR entities, FRAD, and ISBD (more from Gordon about that)This provides exciting opportunities to relate all the

vocabularies together

10/22/10

The General Strategy

7DC-2010

Started with the Entity Relationship Diagrams produced by ALA PublishingThe latest iterations are available on the RDA

Toolkit Site (http://www.rdatoolkit.org/background)

ERDs are organized in three groups: core, enhanced, special

These were developed and iterated with no change management strategy, so each new iteration had to be checked carefully to spot changes

ERDs built with a very XML view of the world

Our Methodology

10/22/10

http://www.rdatoolkit.org/background

8DC-2010

We think of the ‘generalized’ RDA properties as the real RDA vocabulary The ‘bounded’ properties should be seen as the

first pass at an Application ProfileExtensions can be built more usefully from the

generalized propertiesMapping will be cleaner using the generalized

properties (since most properties mapped to or mapped from will not be based on FRBR)

Generalized properties much more acceptable to non-library implementers (not often using FRBR)

The Basic ‘WHY’?

10/22/10

9DC-2010

FRBR in RDA Vocabulary declared as classesRDA Properties declared as a ‘generalized’

vocabulary, with no explicit relationship to FRBR entities

Subproperties for the generalized elements may be explicitly related to FRBR entities (using ‘domain’)Label/Name includes (Work) or other class to

provide unique name (unless the entity name already appears in the name of the property)

The Structure, Simplified

10/22/10

DC-2010 10

Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship)

Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR entity)

FRBR Entity

SemanticWeb

Library ApplicationsThe Simple Case:

One Property-- One FRBR Entity

10/22/10

DC-2010 11

Book format

Book format (Manifestation)

Manifestation

SemanticWeb

Library ApplicationsThe Simple Case:

One Property-- One FRBR Entity

10/22/10

DC-2010 1210/22/10

http://RDVocab.info/Elements/bookFormatManifestation

http://RDVocab.info/Elements/bookFormatManifestation

13DC-2010

There are multiple techniques used in RDA to make the connection between FRBR entities and RDA properties

Some properties related to more than one FRBR entityRelationships in Appendix J actually include the

name of the FRBR entity in the name and have separate definitions (we re-used this strategy for the FRBR-bounded properties)

Other properties and sub-properties appear multiple times in the text and ERDs, with the same definitions and no indication that they might be repeated elsewhere (we consolidated these)

10/22/10

More Complex Relationships

DC-2010 14

Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship)



FRBR Entity

FRBR Entity

SemanticWeb

Library ApplicationsThe Not-So-Simple Case: One Property—more than

One FRBR Entity10/22/10

DC-2010 15

Extent

Extent (Item)

Extent (Manifestation)

FRBR Item

FRBR Manifestation

SemanticWeb

Library ApplicationsThe Not-So-Simple Case: One Property—more than

One FRBR Entity10/22/10

DC-2010 1610/22/10

17DC-2010

In 2005, the DC Usage Board worked with LC to build a formal representation of the MARC Relators so that these terms could be used with DCThese have been superseded by the ‘new’ id.loc.info

version, without the relationships to DC terms (has been pushback on this decision!)

This work provided a template for the registration of the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I) and, by extension, the other RDA relationshipsRole and relationship properties are registered at the

same level as elements, rather than as attributes (as MARC does with relators, and RDA does in its XML)

10/22/10

Roles: Attributes or Properties?

DC-2010 18

“Super” Property


Subproperty (Generalized, no FRBR relationship)

FRBR Entity

SemanticWeb

Library Applications The Roles Case: Properties, Subproperties

and FRBR Entities

Mapping,Etc.

10/22/10

DC-2010 19

RDA:Creator

RDArole:Composer (Work)

RDArole:Composer

Work

SemanticWeb

Library Applications The Roles Case: Properties, Subproperties

and FRBR Entities

Mapping,Etc.

10/22/10

20DC-2010

RDA sets up Publication, Distribution, Manufacture and Production statements very much the way they have been done since catalog card days:Assumed aggregation of Place, Name and Date are

obvious leftovers from catalog cards, and are not necessary to enable indexing or display of those elements together if libraries want to do that

We viewed those aggregations as ‘Syntax Encoding Schemes’ and built in ways to accommodate them within the bounded propertiesThose using the generalized properties (outside

libraries, usually) need not be constrained by these traditional aggregations of properties

10/22/10

Aggregated Statements

DC-2010 21

Aggregated Statement (no domain or range)

Aggregated Statement Subproperty

Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype)

Dom

ain

: FR

BR

E

ntity

Range: [Specific] Encoding Scheme (Subclass)

General Property (no domain or range)

Subproperty

Pre-coordinated Statements: Structure

Option 110/22/10

DC-2010 22

Publication Statement (no domain or range)

Publication Statement (Manifestation)

Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme (Subclass of RDF Datatype)

Dom

ain

: M

an

ifesta

tion

Range: Publication Statement Encoding Scheme (Subclass)

Place of publication (no domain or range)

Place of publication (Manifestation)

Pre-coordinated Statements: Example

Option 110/22/10

23DC-2010

Release from the tyranny of recordsPotential for use with a variety of encodings

Opportunity to re-think how we build and share data

Potential for sharing data beyond the library silo

A challenge to our old notions of what library data can do and should be doing

What Does This Structure Buy Us?

10/22/10

DC-2010 2410/22/10

ID=23456 hasAuthor “Kurt Vonnegut”

ID=23456 hasPreferredTitle

“Bluebeard, a novel”

ID=23456 isFormOfWork “Novel”

ID=23456 hasOriginalLanguage

“English”

ID=23456

hasPlaceOfPublication “New

York”

ID=23456

hasStatementOfEdition “1 st

trade edition”

ID=23456 h

asLan

guageO

fExp

ress

ion

“Englis

h”

ID=23456 hasPublisher

“Delacorte Press”

ID=23456 hasPublicationDate

“1987”

Statements on the Floor?

DC-2010 2510/22/10






“English”

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”

ID=23456 hasLanguageOfExpression

“English”




“1987”

Is This Really Chaos?

DC-2010 2610/22/10






“English”

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”


“English”




“1987”

Or Just an AggregationIn the Making?

DC-2010 2710/22/10


ID=23456 hasPreferredTitle “Bluebeard, a novel”



“English”

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”


“English”




“1987”

DC-2010 2810/22/10




ID=23456 hasOriginalLanguage “English”

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”


“English”




“1987”

DC-2010 2910/22/10





ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”ID=23456 hasLanguageOfExpression

“English”




“1987”

DC-2010 3010/22/10





ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”ID=23456 hasLanguageOfExpression

“English”




“1987”

Work

DC-2010 3110/22/10

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456


trade edition”

ID=23456 hasLanguageOfExpression “English”




“1987”

DC-2010 3210/22/10

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456 hasStatementOfEdition “1st

trade edition”





“1987”

DC-2010 3310/22/10

ID=23456


York”

ID=23456 hasStatementOfEdition “1st

trade edition”





“1987”

Expression

DC-2010 3410/22/10

ID=23456 hasPlaceOfPublication “New

York”




“1987”

DC-2010 3510/22/10


York”

ID=23456 hasPublisher “Delacorte Press”


“1987”

DC-2010 3610/22/10


York”


ID=23456 hasPublicationDate “1987”

DC-2010 3710/22/10


York”


ID=23456 hasPublicationDate “1987”

Manifestation

38DC-2010

The inclusion of generalized properties provides a path for extension of RDA into specialized library communities and non-library communitiesThey may have a different notion of how FRBR

‘aggregates’, for example, a colorized version of a film may be viewed as a separate work

They may not wish to use FRBR at allThey may have additional properties to include,

that have a relationship to the RDA properties

Extension

10/22/10

DC-2010 39

RDA:adaptedAs

RDA:adaptedAsARadioScript

hasSubprope

rty

10/22/10

DC-2010 40

RDA:adaptedAs


KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook

hasSubproperty

hasSubprope

rty10/22/10

DC-2010 41

RDA:adaptedAs


KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook

hasSubproperty

hasSubprope

rty

KidLit:adaptedAsAChapterBook

hasS

ubprop

e

rty

10/22/10

42DC-2010

Completing the hierarchies, both generalized and FRBR-boundedElements and Relationships need to have

bounded hierarchies built (generalized hierarchies complete)

Roles need generalized properties createdJSC review incomplete, for both properties

and vocabulariesStatus designations need to be updated from

‘New—proposed’ to ‘Published’

Completing the Vocabularies

10/22/10

ASIS&T-2010 43

ExtentExtent

(I)Extent

(M)

Extent of Text (M)

Extent of Still Image (M)

Extent of Text

Extent of Still Image

Extent of Text (I)

Extent of Still Image (I)

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Current Registered Relationships 10/26/10

ASIS&T-2010 44

ExtentExtent

(I)Extent

(M)

Extent of Text (M)

Extent of Still Image (M)

Extent of Text

Extent of Still Image

Extent of Text (I)

Extent of Still Image (I)

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Subproperty

Added Registered Relationships

Subproperty

Subproperty

10/26/10

45DC-2010

How do these relate to the RDA guidance text?Who will maintain these? How will they be kept

in sync with the text? Will the governance model for these be the

same as the text? Who decides?How can we use these vocabularies

effectively?What else do we need to identify?How should we continue this work?

Remaining Issues

10/22/10

46DC-2010

We wrote about the decisions we made for RDA in DLib:http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html

Need to continue to disclose what we’ve learned and work on building best practices documentation in this environment

What We’ve Learned

10/22/10

http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html

http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.html

Important related workGordon Dunsire

SummaryFR family (FRBR, FRAD, and FRSAD)RDF/XML representation of the consolidated

edition of ISBD.General issues arising

feedback into standards developmentlabels, definitions and scope notesconstrained and unconstrained representationsuse of opaque URIs

IFLA Namespaces Technical Group.Relating FR, ISBD and RDA, SKOS, FOAF, etc.

FR family“Functional Requirements” family or “FRBR

family of models”:FRBR, 1998: Bibliographic Records [data]FRAD, 2009: Authority DataFRSAD, [2010]: Subject Authority DataPreliminary work: the FRBR Namespace

Project used the testing area of the National Science Digital Library Metadata Registry (NSDL)Now the Open Metadata Registry

WLIC 2010, Gothenburg: Sun 15 August 2010

FR namespacesFRBR Review Group decided to declare

separate namespaces for FR componentsLength of time since FRBR publicationDependence of FRAD on FRBR, and FRSAD on

FRADMight lead to change of earlier semantics

Prevent delay in RDF representation while ... Consolidated model in development

Not until after IFLA 2011 (Puerto Rico)

FR in RDFRepresentation of FRBRer model element set

is mainly completeClasses and properties have “approved” statusFRAD and FRSAD close behind

Representation in Resource Description Framework (RDF) is informing work on combining and consolidating the model familyAlso supplies “learning curve” for Semantic

Web environmentOWL representation of FRBRer completed

To be published real soon now


International Standard Bibliographic DescriptionFRBR is a conceptual model built on the E-R

methodology which is intrinsically applicable to representation in RDF, while ISBD is a data standard

Design of the RDF representation of ISBD involves:the treatment of aggregated statements in a defined

number of elements within the areas;the treatment of mandatory and optional elements

and areas;the order of areas and elements within an area;the repeatability of areas and elements;the treatment of punctuation and its double function.


ISBDBasic element set developed (near-final)

Analysis fed back into development of final consolidated edition, due IFLA 2011

Represented in Open Metadata RegistryAggregated statements identified

Treated in the same way as for RDADC Application Profile started

Describes ISBD record structure (sequence, mandatory status, repeatability of elements)

Completion due Spring 2011

Stats

Namespace Classes Properties R A Total

FRBRer 10 206 216

FRAD 12 130 42

FRSAD 2 17 19

ISBD 25* 183 x 20

* 24 ISBD classes are Syntax Encoding Schemes

General issues arising (1)Labels, definitions and scope notes

Text follows ur-documents as closely as possibleAdjustments for consistency“has”+attribute name / “is” + attribute name +

“of” property pairs (inverses)No inverse properties in ISBD!

Scope note contains examples, “includes ...”Constrained properties

FRBR is investigating Domain/Range-free equivalentsLess of an issue with ISBD

General issues arising (2)Use of opaque URIs

http://iflastandards.info/ns/isbd/elements/P1004“has title proper”

Does not favour a particular language in a multi-lingual environmentTranslations of labels, etc. – same URI

Forces de-referencing by the non-expertE.g. Multiple “has title ...” properties

IFLA NamespacesTask Group reported to Professional Committee

in May 2010Recommendations and options for namespace

infrastructureAccepted August 2010 (IFLA WLIC)

Technical Group to be set up

Will report to new IFLA Bibliographic Standards Program (Core Activity)Universal bibliographic control for 21st century

FRBR and ISBD Review Groups agree to work more closely with JSC, and liaise with Semantic Web communities (Aug 2010)

Extent

Extent of textExtent of still image

Extent of text (I/)Extent of still image (I/)Extent of text (M/) Extent of still image (M/)

Extent (M/) Extent (I/)

Label (Domain/Range)Subproperty

RDA properties

Extent

Extent of text

Extent of text (M/)

Extent (M/)


RDA

has extent of the carrier (M/)

FRBRSameAs

has extent (R/)

ISBD

has extent of the carrier

FRBR lite ISBD lite

has extent

RDA/IFLA properties (minimal linkage)

Note: Manifestation sub-class-of Resource

Extent

Extent of text

Extent of text (M/)

Extent (M/)


RDA

has extent of the carrier (M/)

FRBRSameAs

has extent (R/)

ISBD


FRBR lite ISBD lite

has extent

RDA/IFLA properties (maximum linkage)


RDA FRBRSameAs

ISBD

FRBR lite ISBD lite

RDA/IFLA/other properties (minimal linkage)

DCT

Extent (/S)

DC

format

Extent

Extent of text

Extent of text (M/)

Extent (M/) has extent of the carrier (M/)

has extent (R/)


has extent

BIBO

numPages (D/l) numVolumes (C/l)

Classes: Manifestation, Resource, Collection, Document, SizeOrDuration, literal

Note: Document sub-class-of Resource

62DC-2010

DCMI/RDA Task Group Wiki: http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/

RDA Vocabularies: http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

Diane: [email protected]: [email protected]

Please join us and participate!

Links and Contact Info

10/22/10

http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/

http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Technology

DCMI/RDA Task Group Report, DC-2010 Pittsburgh