[open-bibliography] Comments on transformed BNB data

Deliot, Corine Corine.Deliot at bl.uk
Wed Nov 24 13:26:39 GMT 2010


I'm sorry but I still don't understand. I've looked at  http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB8102507 <http://bnb.bibliographica.org/entry/GB8102507> , which I believe is the RDF/XML you were pointing me to. 
 
The Dublin Core namespace declaration still doesn't make sense to me. As stated before in this email string and based on the data we submitted, my understanding is that there should be two namespace declarations, one for the legacy namespace prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>, one for the /terms/ namespace prefix:dct <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>.  They are two different namespaces. The /terms/ namespace does not include the "legacy" terms; the 15 legacy properties have been "copied" into the /terms/ namespace, they are new properties with formally declared domains and ranges as explained in "Notes on DCMI specifications for Dublin Core metadata in RDF" [1]. 
 
All Dublin Core properties used in the BNB dataset should use the prefix dct: except one, dc:date. 
 
I would appreciate some input from DCMI which is why I have copied a couple of DCMI colleagues.
 
Many thanks in advance for explaining.
 
Best regards
 
Corine
 
[1]http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/index.shtml
 
________________________________

From: open-bibliography-bounces at lists.okfn.org on behalf of Ben O'Steen
Sent: Tue 23/11/2010 12:33
To: List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data
Cc: William Waites
Subject: Re: [open-bibliography] Comments on transformed BNB data
Using the prefix dc for the DC terms namespace is not incorrect, it is
merely unusual. DC terms does include all the 'legacy' terms and extends
it with a number of extra terms.

The reason why many use the dcterms vs dc prefix is by a rough
convention to let other people know that this is using the more up to
date namespace.

However, your point about the range of dc:issued being highly
restrictive is completely fair. Having to go back and use a namespace
that is already declared to be legacy may not be the best way forward.
If anyone has a suggestion as to which predicate we can use instead,
I'll be glad to hear it.

Ben
________________________________

From: William Waites [mailto:ww at eris.okfn.org]
Sent: Tue 23/11/2010 12:29
To: Deliot, Corine
Cc: List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data
Subject: Re: Comments on transformed BNB data
* [2010-11-23 12:21:47 -0000] Deliot, Corine <Corine.Deliot at bl.uk> écrit:

]
] You reference the @prefix:dc as http://purl.org/dc/terms/
]
] This is not correct. It should be:

It is a matter of definition, in the RDF/XML you'll see the full URI
spelled out. In the N3, I've chosen to call it "dc". It could just as
well have been called "wibble" it makes absolutely no difference. (And
you'll often see serialisations where all the namespaces have prefixes
like ns1, ns2, ns3).

Cheers,
-w
--
William Waites
http://eris.okfn.org/ww/foaf#i
9C7E F636 52F6 1004 E40A  E565 98E3 BBF3 8320 7664
 

On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 12:21 +0000, Deliot, Corine wrote:
> William,
>
> 
>
> Just had a look at the sample record available at
> http://eris.okfn.org/ww/2010/11/bl. I have some comments on the Dublin
> Core bit of the record.
>
> 
>
> You reference the @prefix:dc as http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>
> 
>
> This is not correct. It should be:
>
> 
>
> For the legacy namespace, @prefix dc:
> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
>
> For the /terms/ namespace, @prefix dct or dcterms:
> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/>
>
> 
>
> The following properties do not exist:
>
> dc:isPartOf; dc:extent; dc:issued
>
> 
>
> They should be:
>
> dcterms:isPartOf; dcterms:extent; dcterms:issued
>
> 
>
> This is not how the British Library submitted the data. See sample at:
>
> http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/datasamples.html
>
> 
>
> We mainly made use of Dublin Core properties in the /terms/ namespace;
> the only property in the legacy /elements/1.1/ that we used was
> dc:date. This is because the range of dcterms:date and its
> sub-properties is rdfs:Literal; this didn't allow us to use the Time
> Ontology in OWL.
>
> 
>
> Cheers
>
> 
>
> Corine
>
> 
>
> *********************************
>
> Corine Deliot
>
> Metadata Standards Analyst
>
> The British Library
>
> Boston Spa, Wetherby
>
> West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ
>
> e-mail: corine.deliot at bl.uk
>
> *********************************
>
> 
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
> 
> The British Library's new interactive Annual Report and Accounts
> 2009/10 : www.bl.uk/knowledge
> 
> Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
> www.bl.uk/adoptabook
> 
> The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
> 
> *************************************************************************
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify
> the postmaster at bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be
> disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
> 
> The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library.
> The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of
> the author.
> 
> *************************************************************************
>  Think before you print
> _______________________________________________
> open-bibliography mailing list
> open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography



_______________________________________________
open-bibliography mailing list
open-bibliography at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-bibliography
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-bibliography/attachments/20101124/23120f20/attachment.htm>


More information about the open-bibliography mailing list