small addition (singleton and roles)

[eroux]

Something I've been looking for for some time is the FRBR "Singleton Manifestation", which we could transate into "SIngleton Expression", it's an expression that is made with no possible copies (in our case: a manuscript). It makes things quite nice at a conceptual level: the term "manuscript" can stay for the imprint mechanism, and we can have special properties for Singleton Expressions (I can't think of any right now, but I have the feeling we will find some).

Also, I think we should add two new roles:

• "digitizer": the agent who did the actual digitization
• "digitization founder": the agent founding the digitization. Now, the definition of "sponsor" could be expanded to incorporate this, why not...

[xristy]

Since Bibframe has bf:Instance equivalent with FRBR Manifestation, and bdo:Instance extends bf:Instance, via:

bdo:Instance rdfs:subClassOf bf:Instance

it would seem to me that we want to add:

bdo:SingleInstance a owl:Class ;
    rdfs:subClassOf bdo:Instance .

and

bdr:W12F4EB77 a bdoSingletonInstance ;
    bdo:printMethod bdr:PrintMethod_Manuscript .

It seems fine to add

bdr:R0ER0031 a bdo:Creator ;
    skos:prefLabel "digitizer"@en .

I'm not sure of the nuance of "digitization founder" (funder?), but we can certainly include the concept in the skos:definition of bdr: R0ER0030 or create a new role (once the roles are converted to a skos:ConceptScheme:

bdr:R0ER0032 a bdo:Creator ;
    skos:prefLabel "digitization founder"@en ;
    skos:broader bdr: R0ER0030 .

If funder is what you mean, then that seems a synonym of sponsor.

[eroux]

souds perfect, I mean funder indeed

[xristy]

so we don't need a separate role since we have bdo:DigitalInstance separate from bdo:PhysicalInstance and so:

bdr:W4B65AFE71 a bdo:DigitalInstance ;
    bdo:agentInRole bdr:AIRFF394D .
bdr:AIRFF394D a bdo:AgentInRole ;
    bdo:role bdr:R0ER0030 ;
    bdo:agent bdr:CBritishLibrary .

will indicate that the British Library sponsored the digital instance bdr:W4B65AFE71.

The following can be added to bds:InstanceShape:

  sh:property [
      a sh:PropertyShape ;
      sh:path bdo:agentInRole ;
      sh:class bdo:Creator ;
      sh:minCount 0 ;
      sh:name "creator agent"@en ;
  ] ;

to clarify that we use creator roles when applying the generic property bdo:agentInRole to a bdo:Instance and deprecate bdo:creator.

[eroux]

ok for using R0ER0030, I'm not very opposed to replacing bdo:creator with bdo:agentInRole, I'm not sure I really a low cost/benefit ratio...

[xristy]

well the idea of simplifying the properties towards more generic properties used in different qualified contexts is a major point of the Younes review. I'm pretty neutral on the issue though. Retaining bdo:creator we simply change the sh:path in the shape.

I should also clarify a snippet from my reply-before-last:

bdr:W12F4EB77 a bdo:SingletonInstance , bdo:PhysicalInstance ;
    bdo:printMethod bdr:PrintMethod_Manuscript .

[eroux]

I think I'm missing something... apart from a change of name, what does bdo:agentAsCreator bring? More consistency? How does it simplify?

[xristy]

I mean a property bdo:agentInRole which maps something to an bdo:AgentInRole and then constrain the use of the bdo:agentInRole property on bdo:Instance so that the object of the property is a bdo:AgentAsCreator. I made a mistake in the shape definition. It should be:

sh:property [
      a sh:PropertyShape ;
      sh:path bdo:agentInRole ;
      sh:class bdo:AgentAsCreator ;
      sh:minCount 0 ;
      sh:name "creator agent"@en ;
  ] ;

meaning that applying bdo:agentInRole to a bdo:Instance should have an object which is a bdo:AgentAsCreator which is in turn constrained so that applying bdo:role to the individual of type bdo:AgentAsCreator will have an object that is bdo:Creator.

[eroux]

oooh ok I think I get it now, sorry for being slow! Yes ok let's do that

[eroux]

(can you also please change xmltold? I'll change rKTs-migration)

[xristy]

I was intending these changes for the evolving branch. Which branch do you want changes in, master or abstractworks?

[eroux]

actually I think having this + the identifier in the master branch would be good, the new Identifier pattern would simplify the queries

[xristy]

let's chat tomorrow and finalize