You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The existing properties and class - bf:arrangement, bf:organization, and bf:Arrangement - present some unfortunate naming collisions.
At this time – May 2021 - the class – bf:Arrangement - refers to the arrangement of a collection of resources. The property - https://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe-2-0-1.html#p_arrangement – associates a Work or Instance with a bf:Arrangement. These map to MARC Bib 351 – Organization and Arrangement of Materials.
The collision here is with the more common association of “arrangement” with music. Musical Work X is an arrangement of Musical Work Y. Musical Work Y is an Arrangement. This rather useful and good relationship has been shoved in bflc for a while now, but really needs to be elevated to the main ontology because it is a readily derivable relationship and a good one. The problem here is that we risk having very similarly named properties in the vocabulary with the stronger property– bf:arrangement – referring to a rather uncommon concept (when compared to that of a musical arrangement).
The property bf:organization - https://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe-2-0-1.html#p_organization – is the organization of resources within a bf:Arrangement, but it has the unfortunate collision with the class bf:Organization, which means something entirely different. bf:organization also breaks a wider pattern in the Ontology
bf:contribution/bf:Contribution
bf:role/bf:Role
bf:agent/bf:Agent
bf:note/bf:Note
And so on….
Which is to say that this pattern does not hold (and wouldn’t make sense):
bf:organization/bf:Organization
Yet, on the surface, you couldn’t blame anyone for thinking that that was a viable pattern just by reviewing the names of BF properties and classes. That person is in for a surprise.
The existing properties and the class are not used anywhere at this time. LC has not incorporated them into any profiles nor has Sinopia (per email communication with Nancy Lorimer). At LC, a scan of the MARC stats reveals that there are 3,595 MARC bib records using the 351 field. Such a small number comes nowhere close to even qualifying as a rounding error out of 22M bib records.
Expected/recommended changes:
bf:CollectionArrangement – new class
Label: Organization of materials information
Definition: Information about the organization and arrangement of a collection of items. For instance, for computer files, organization and arrangement information may be the file structure and sort sequence of a file; for visual materials, this information may be how a collection is arranged.
SubClassOf: None
bf:collectionArrangement – new property
Label: Collection Organization and arrangement
Definition: Information about the organization and arrangement of a collection of resources.
Domain: Suggested use - With Work or Instance
Range: CollectionArrangement
SubPropertyOf: None
bf:collectionArrangementOf – new property
Label: Organization and arrangement of Collection
Definition: Relates an Arrangement resource to that which it describes.
Domain: CollectionArrangement
Range: Suggested value - With Work or Instance
SubPropertyOf: None
bf:collectionOrganization – new property
Label: Organization of material
Definition: Manner in which the resource is divided into smaller units.
Domain: CollectionArrangement
Range: rdfs:Literal
bf:pattern – change domain to bf:CollectionArrangement
bf:hierarchicalLevel – change domain to bf:CollectionArrangement
bf:organization – delete property
bf:Arrangement – redefine class
Label: Arrangement
Definition: Resource that represents an arrangement of another resource.
SubClass Of: Work
bf:arrangement– redefine property
Label: Arrangement
Definition: Relates one resource to another of which it is an arrangement of the first.
SubProperty Of: relatedTo
Domain: Work
Range: Work
bf:arrangementOf – new property
Label: Arrangement of
Definition: Relates an arrangement to the resource of which it is an arrangement.
SubProperty Of: relatedTo
Domain: Work
Range: Work
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
kefo
changed the title
collarr
Proposal: Introduce CollectionArrangement, etc; Redefine Arrangement, etc
Jun 24, 2021
The existing properties and class - bf:arrangement, bf:organization, and bf:Arrangement - present some unfortunate naming collisions.
At this time – May 2021 - the class – bf:Arrangement - refers to the arrangement of a collection of resources. The property - https://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe-2-0-1.html#p_arrangement – associates a Work or Instance with a bf:Arrangement. These map to MARC Bib 351 – Organization and Arrangement of Materials.
The collision here is with the more common association of “arrangement” with music. Musical Work X is an arrangement of Musical Work Y. Musical Work Y is an Arrangement. This rather useful and good relationship has been shoved in bflc for a while now, but really needs to be elevated to the main ontology because it is a readily derivable relationship and a good one. The problem here is that we risk having very similarly named properties in the vocabulary with the stronger property– bf:arrangement – referring to a rather uncommon concept (when compared to that of a musical arrangement).
The property bf:organization - https://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe-2-0-1.html#p_organization – is the organization of resources within a bf:Arrangement, but it has the unfortunate collision with the class bf:Organization, which means something entirely different. bf:organization also breaks a wider pattern in the Ontology
And so on….
Which is to say that this pattern does not hold (and wouldn’t make sense):
Yet, on the surface, you couldn’t blame anyone for thinking that that was a viable pattern just by reviewing the names of BF properties and classes. That person is in for a surprise.
The existing properties and the class are not used anywhere at this time. LC has not incorporated them into any profiles nor has Sinopia (per email communication with Nancy Lorimer). At LC, a scan of the MARC stats reveals that there are 3,595 MARC bib records using the 351 field. Such a small number comes nowhere close to even qualifying as a rounding error out of 22M bib records.
Expected/recommended changes:
bf:CollectionArrangement – new class
bf:collectionArrangement – new property
Domain: Suggested use - With Work or Instance
bf:collectionArrangementOf – new property
bf:collectionOrganization – new property
bf:pattern – change domain to bf:CollectionArrangement
bf:hierarchicalLevel – change domain to bf:CollectionArrangement
bf:organization – delete property
bf:Arrangement – redefine class
bf:arrangement– redefine property
bf:arrangementOf – new property
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: