Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Posting to public-schemabibex

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

<snip>
Here are a couple of ways that “manifestation/item” continue to be relevant on the Web:

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53

http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/6640/The%20OpenURL%20Framework%20for%20Context-Sensitive%20Services.pdf

The former is under-appreciated. The latter is idiomatic and over-engineered. Both are worth considering.
</snip>

Thanks for sharing that. To be honest, these are difficult for me to go through, but from what I can gather there is the example from:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/53

“The owners of http://example.com/ubiquity would like to publish their content to a wide variety of end-user devices ranging from desktop Web browsers to mobile devices such as cell-phones and PDAs. They also serve multiple geographies using different languages. They know about the different markup language variants that are currently in vogue on these devices, and are capable of generating the representation that is most appropriate for the accessing user-agent. In publishing their content and associated URIs, they face the following issues. 

Given generic resource http://example.com/ubiquity/resource with corresponding alternatives for a desktop browser, a PDA and a cell-phone:

  • Should the different alternatives have distinct URIs?
  • Should the generic resource have a single URI that delivers the appropriate representation?
  • If publishing distinct URIs for the resource and its various representations, how should the relationship between these URIs be expressed in a discoverable, machine-readable form? How should this relationship be reflected in the hyperlink structure of the Web?”

This seems to relate not so much to differing manifestations, but how those resources will be received and displayed. What I mean by this is that ultimately, the files themselves are the same, but the styles (stylesheets) are different. I had mentioned that before. To be more specific, default for a Google search from here in Italy is with an Italian interface. Or when on a website such as www.fao.org, someone can opt to see it in the official languages of FAO: English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. (Not all of these are complete) Yet another alternative would be when a single XML file is displayed differently based on the specific piece of software where it is downloading into, such as pdf, html, epub, mobi, txt or in a whole number of ways.

In any case, these do not seem to actually be different manifestations (since only a single file really exists, as opposed to a printed 3rd ed. of a book or map, or a book published by a different publisher with different paging) and this is rather discussing different expressions. The purpose of the manifestation record is to bring together different copies/items for the convenience of the user. These items/copies are all supposed to be the same. It is not that one community sees substantially different information from another community. What about automatic translations such as Frankfurther Allgemeine in Google Translate? Does it help to think of these types of resources as different manifestations/expressions, or are they something different?

I personally think these are something different and thinking of them as different manifestations/expressions is not helpful. This is the reality of the future since these tools will only get better and better.

The other: http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/6640/The%20OpenURL%20Framework%20for%20Context-Sensitive%20Services.pdf seems to be about matters of access, i.e. does someone from one agency have the right to access a specific file.
“These packages have a description of a referenced resource at their core, and they are transported with the intent of obtaining context-sensitive services pertaining to the referenced resource. To enable the recipients of these packages to deliver such context-sensitive services, each package describes the referenced resource itself, the network context in which the resource is referenced, and the context in which the service request takes place”

This seems to me to be related to access services, in other terms, does someone have the right to enter my library and use the materials there. No matter, there is still the assumption that the same files
are being accessed.

Therefore, what we see in these examples is either a matter of variant display of the same files, or, that of accessing the same files. In either case, we are discussing the same files–not different items/copies of the same files.

Now, if we were discussing BitTorrents, e.g. https://torrentz.eu/search?q=harry+potter where there really are multiple copies available, that would be a completely different discussion, but I don’t see that this
would be a very popular area for libraries to enter. At least within some communities.

-645

Share