Diane Hillmann: RDA Vocabularies in the Semantic Web

 Sorting out some important definitions
 A brief history lesson on the RDA Vocabularies
 A structural tour of the vocabularies, including:
 Rationale and decision making
 General and FRBR-constrained elements
 Potential for extension
 Putting it all together
 Language versions of RDA Vocabularies
 Important related work
 Our focus is on ‘Why’ not ‘How’ (we’re not at ‘How’
yet)
Nov. 17, 2011 2ALA TechSource Webinar

 How RDA will be working in the real world
 WHY?: There aren’t tools yet, and we don’t really know
what they’ll look like …
 But maybe we can make some educated guesses?
 Most likely the tools will be form-based (like the MARC
tools are)
 There are likely to be fewer places where text is typed in
and more where pull-down lists are available
 The FRBR structure, if used intelligently by vendors,
should save time and money, as re-use of data will be
possible (choices will still need to be made to identify
the appropriate work and expression when these exist)

 XML assumes a 'closed' world (domain), usually defined by
a schema:
 "We know all of the data describing this resource. The single
description must be a valid document according to our
schema. The data must be valid.”
 XML's document model provides a neat equivalence to a
metadata 'record’
 RDF assumes an 'open' world:
 "There's an infinite amount of unknown data describing this
resource yet to be discovered. It will come from an infinite
number of providers. There will be an infinite number of
descriptions. Those descriptions must be consistent."
 RDF's statement-oriented data model has no notion of
'record’ (rather, statements can be aggregated for a fuller
description of a resource)

 In XML these are ‘attribute/value pairs’
 Ex.: Author = Twain, Mark
 Where, in the context of a bounded record structure we
know what we’re describing
 In the Resource Description Framework (RDF, the
language of the Semantic Web), these are independent
statements:
 Ex.: The author of Huckleberry Finn is Mark Twain, or
 subject = Huckeberry Finn
 predicate = hasAuthor
 Object = Mark Twain

 We need to expand our ideas of what machines can
and should do for us
 We need to articulate better what we, as humans,
bring to the table (and stop thinking we need to
control it ALL)
 We need to educate ourselves about this new world we
live in (what it is and isn’t)
 We need to understand enough to work with our
vendors to make it happen in our libraries

A Brief History
It all started in
London, the last day
of April 2007

 The participants agreed that DCMI and the Joint
Steering Committee for the Development of RDA
should work together to:
 Develop an RDA Element Vocabulary
 Expose RDA Value Vocabularies
 Develop an RDA Application Profile, based on FRBR and
FRAD
 The first two are largely complete; the third is started
8Nov. 17, 2011ALA TechSource Webinar

 It represented a recognition on the part of library
leaders that it was essential to break out of the data
silo of the past
 The collaboration started at that meeting is resonating
throughout the world of library data standards (more
on this later)
 It started the process of exposing library experience
and knowledge to a larger audience
 It set the stage for libraries to broaden their view of
what they do and what they offer the information
world

 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,
FRSAR and ISBD
 This provides exciting opportunities to relate all the
vocabularies together

 Property and value vocabularies are registered in 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)
 Decisions oriented to favor approaches that can be
generalized to make other vocabulary based standards
web-friendly, available for use in applications, and
easily updated by communities

 FRBR in RDA Vocabulary declared as classes
 RDA 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)
 Other generalized subproperties usable by others not
tied to FRBR
 All this is done according to available best practices for
declaring vocabularies on the Web

 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 Profile
 Extensions can be built more usefully from the
generalized properties
 Mapping 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)

Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship)
Subproperty (with relationship to one FRBR
entity)
FRBR Entity
Semantic
Web
Library Applications
The Simple Case:
One Property--
One FRBR Entity

Book format
Book format (Manifestation)
Manifestation
Semantic
Web
Library Applications
The Simple Case:
One Property--
One FRBR Entity

Nov. 17, 2011ALA TechSource Webinar 16
http://RDVocab.info/Elements/bookFormatManifestation

 There are multiple techniques used in RDA to make
the connection between FRBR entities and RDA
properties
 We tried to reconcile those in the RDA Vocabularies
 Some properties related to more than one FRBR
entity
 Relationships 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)

Property (Generalized, no FRBR relationship)
entity)
entity)
FRBR Entity
FRBR Entity
Semantic
Web
Library Applications The Not-So-Simple Case:
One Property—more than
One FRBR Entity

Extent
Extent (Item)
Extent (Manifestation)
FRBR Item
FRBR Manifestation
Semantic
Web
Library Applications The Not-So-Simple Case:
One Property—more than
One FRBR Entity

 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 DC
 This work provided a template for the registration of
the role terms in RDA (in Appendix I) and, by
extension, the other RDA relationships
 Role 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
schemas)
 Applications can choose either approach

“Super” Property
entity)
Subproperty (Generalized, no FRBR
relationship)
FRBR Entity
Semantic
Web
Library Applications The Roles Case:
Properties, Subproperties
and FRBR Entities
Mapping,
Etc.

RDA:Creator
RDArole:Composer (Work)
RDArole:Composer
Work
Semantic
Web
Library Applications The Roles Case:
Properties, Subproperties
and FRBR Entities
Mapping,
Etc.

 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’ (as defined in the DCAM) and built in
ways to accommodate them within the bounded
properties
 Those using the generalized properties (outside
libraries, usually) need not be constrained by these
traditional aggregations of properties

Aggregated Statement (no domain or range)
Aggregated Statement Subproperty
Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme
(Subclass of RDF Datatype)
Domain:FRBREntity
Range: [Specific] Encoding Scheme
(Subclass)
General Property (no domain or range)
Subproperty
Pre-coordinated Statements: Structure
Option 1

Publication Statement (no domain or range)
Publication Statement (Manifestation)
Range: RDA Syntax Encoding Scheme
(Subclass of RDF Datatype)
Domain:Manifestation
Range: Publication Statement Encoding
Scheme (Subclass)
Place of publication (no domain or range)
Place of publication (Manifestation)
Pre-coordinated Statements: Example
Option 1

 Release from the tyranny of records
 Potential for use with a variety of encodings
 Ability to maintain statements at a more granular level
 Opportunity to re-think how we build, maintain and share
data
 Potential for sharing data beyond the library silo
 Both directions!
 A challenge to our old notions of what library data can do
and should be doing
 As our users migrate to the web and away from library
catalogs, we need to follow them (and lead them
appropriately!)

 How do we take advantage of the RDA Vocabulary
infrastructure?
 Relationships between properties is built-in, allowing
‘bottom up’ aggregation of data
 Tools to enable easier data creation (with machine
assistance) are critical
 Our thinking about how we build and share data needs
to reflect modern ideas about data use, not MARC
 Ex.: records as aggregations of information, not
templates to be filled in (although some tools may
continue to look like that’s what they’re doing)

ID=23456 hasAuthor “Kurt
Vonnegut”
ID=23456 isFormOfWork “Novel”
Statements on the Floor?

Vonnegut”
Is This Really Chaos?

Vonnegut”
Or Just an Aggregation
In the Making?

Vonnegut”
ID=23456 hasPreferredTitle “Bluebeard, a
novel”

Vonnegut”
novel”
ID=23456 hasOriginalLanguage “English”

Vonnegut”
novel”

Vonnegut”
novel”
Work

ID=23456 hasLanguageOfExpression
“English”

ID=23456 hasStatementOfEdition “1st
trade edition”
“English”

ID=23456 hasStatementOfEdition “1st
trade edition”
“English”
Expression

ID=23456 hasPlaceOfPublication
“New York”

“New York”
ID=23456 hasPublisher “Delacorte Press”

“New York”
ID=23456 hasPublicationDate “1987”

“New York”
ID=23456 hasPublicationDate “1987”
Manifestation

 The inclusion of generalized properties provides a path
for extension of RDA into specialized library
communities and non-library communities
 They 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 all
 They may have additional properties to include, that
have a relationship to the RDA properties
 This allows other communities to use this data without
problems

RDA:adaptedAs
RDA:adaptedAsARadioScript

RDA:adaptedAs
KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook

RDA:adaptedAs
KidLit:adaptedAsAPictureBook
KidLit:adaptedAsAChapterBook

 We wrote about the decisions we made for RDA in
DLib:
http://dlib.org/dlib/january10/hillmann/01hillmann.h
tml
 Need to continue to disclose what we’ve learned and
work on building best practices documentation in this
environment
 We need research and innovation to help us move
forward

 Registered elements and vocabularies can include
multiple languages
 The Open Metadata Registry has been working with
the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek to demonstrate this
with German translations in the OMR for specific
vocabularies
 Other language versions being discussed with national
libraries and language groups by ALA Publishing in
conjunction with translations of RDA guidance text
 OMR enhancements planned to make building of
language versions easier

 “Functional Requirements” family or “FRBR family of
models”:
 FRBR, 1998: Bibliographic Records [data]
 FRAD, 2009: Authority Data
 FRSAD, [2010]: Subject Authority Data
 Consolidated model in development
 RDF/XML representation of the consolidated edition
of ISBD.
 Relating FR, ISBD and RDA, SKOS, FOAF, etc.

 Representation of FRBRer model element set is mainly
complete
 Classes and properties have “approved” status
 FRAD and FRSAD close behind
 Representation in Resource Description Framework
Schema (RDFS) is informing work on combining and
consolidating the model family
 Also supplies “learning curve” for Semantic Web
environment
 FRBR is a conceptual model built on the E-R
methodology which is intrinsically applicable to
representation in RDF, while ISBD is a data standard
ALA TechSource Webinar
Nov. 17, 2011 53

Extent
Extent of text Extent 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/)
Subproperty
RDA
has extent of the carrier (M/)
FRBR
SameAs
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/)
Subproperty
RDA
has extent of the carrier (M/)
FRBR
SameAs
has extent (R/)
ISBD
FRBR lite ISBD lite
has extent
RDA/IFLA properties (maximum
linkage)

Subproperty
RDA FRBR
SameAs
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

 DCMI/RDA Task Group Wiki:
http://dublincore.org/dcmirdataskgroup/
 RDA Vocabularies:
http://metadataregistry.org/rdabrowse.htm
 Diane: metadata.maven@gmail.com
Slides on IFLA Vocabularies by Gordon Dunsire
Flickr images thanks to: Trois TÃªtes (TT), Craft*ology

Diane Hillmann: RDA Vocabularies in the Semantic Web

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Diane Hillmann: RDA Vocabularies in the Semantic Web

Similar to Diane Hillmann: RDA Vocabularies in the Semantic Web (20)

More from ALATechSource

More from ALATechSource (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Diane Hillmann: RDA Vocabularies in the Semantic Web