BibFrame already has an RDF view which is well-defined. Are you trying to come
up with your own RDF model for BibFrame data?
Steve McDonald
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh
Welker
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:28 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [CODE4LIB] BIBFRAME nesting question
Hi all,
I have a question about how to model a resource expressed in BIBFRAME. We are
digitizing some unique collections. Ideally, I'd like to have one URI like
http://example.org/myuri that returns one RDF document containing data about
the Work, the Instance, and the Item. There are two ways I could do
this:
1. Use Work as the parent type and include the Instance as a child blank node
using the Work.expressionOf property, and then include the Item as a
second-level child node using the Instance.hasItem property. Example:
bf:Work:
bf:title: [title node here]
bf:hasInstance:
bf:Instance:
bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
bf:hasItem:
bf:Item:
bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
2. Use some parent container class like rdf:Description and include the Work,
Instance, and item as immediate children blank nodes of that container. Example:
rdf:Description:
bf:Work:
bf:title: [title node here]
bf:Instance:
bf:bookFormat: [bookFormat node here]
bf:Item
bf:shelfMarker: [shelfMarker node here]
3. If neither 1 nor 2 are acceptable, I could have separate URI endpoints for
the Work, Instance, and Item. This has the advantage of using less blank nodes:
http://example.org/myuri_Work
http://example.org/myuri_Instance
http://example.org/myuri_Item
I really prefer option 3 the least, but I am very uncertain between 1 and 2.
Thoughts on which is best practice? If 2, what should I use as the container
class? And in any case, how much should I worry about the proliferation of
blank nodes?
Joshua Welker
Information Technology Librarian
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022
