specification the location of a bibo:Collection

[Aaron Rubinstein]

I'm wondering if there is a strategy in place for describing the
location of a manuscript collection. Since manuscript collections
don't have a bibo:publisher in the traditional sense, it would be
handy to be able to say something like:

<http://example_archive.com/mss1#collection>
a bibo:Collection .
bibo:location http://example_archive#organization

[Aaron Rubinstein]

Sorry, hit send before I finished formatting the triples:

<http://example_archive.com/mss1#collection>
a bibo:Collection ;
bibo:location <http://example_archive#organization> .

Thanks!

Aaron

[Bruce D'Arcus]

Try bibo:owner:

<http://bibotools.googlecode.com/svn/bibo-ontology/trunk/doc/objectproperties/owner___927853113.html>

Bruce

[Aaron Rubinstein]

Thanks, Bruce, for getting back so quickly!
bibo:owner looks like a good option, though it has implications that
might not always be true, e.g. a repository might house a collection but
not technically be the owner of it, which is why I was looking for
something a little more neutral.

Aaron

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bibliographic Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bibliographic-ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group?hl=.
>
>
>

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Aaron Rubinstein <rubin...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Bruce, for getting back so quickly!
> bibo:owner looks like a good option, though it has implications that
> might not always be true, e.g. a repository might house a collection
> but
> not technically be the owner of it, which is why I was looking for
> something a little more neutral.

Maybe we could add a 'holder' or 'heldBy' property?

[Frederick Giasson]

Hi,

>> Thanks, Bruce, for getting back so quickly!
>> bibo:owner looks like a good option, though it has implications that
>> might not always be true, e.g. a repository might house a collection
>> but
>> not technically be the owner of it, which is why I was looking for
>> something a little more neutral.
>>
>
> Maybe we could add a 'holder' or 'heldBy' property?
>

Is the goal to have a physical location of a collection? If so, I don't
think referring the "location" to an organization is safe. What happen
if the headquarter of the organization change, but that the collection
is still physically located to another place?


Thanks,


Fred

[Aaron Rubinstein]

In my use case, I'm trying to refer to the archive that holds the
collection, not necessarily the physical location. Having a property
that points to an organization allows me to link to physical location
information in a representation of the organization. I think
bibo:heldBy seems to fit the bill for my need, at least.

Aaron

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Frederick Giasson <fr...@fgiasson.com>
wrote:

Seems similar to the publisher vs. Pub place issue that recently came
up.

>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Fred

[sieh...@googlemail.com]

Hi,

To specify the location, you could use dct:spatial which is a
subproperty of dc:coverage. I could not find a hook where to put the
ownership in dublin core and so bibo:owner has no superproperty. A
"holder"/"heldBy" property could be useful in addition but what does
it mean to hold something? You may own it or you may give access to it
or you may at least keep an eye on it? Where is the difference to
partOf? If you own a collection does this imply that you also own each
part of it?

Cheers,
Jakob

[Bruce D'Arcus]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:18 AM, jakob...@gbv.de
<sieh...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> To specify the location, you could use dct:spatial which is a
> subproperty of dc:coverage.

No, that doesn't work.

> I could not find a hook where to put the
> ownership in dublin core and so bibo:owner has no superproperty. A
> "holder"/"heldBy" property could be useful in addition but what does
> it mean to hold something? You may own it or you may give access to it
> or you may at least keep an eye on it?

I'm not an archivist, but I am imagining some collection of document
owned by some organization, but who gives an archives rights to hold,
maintain, and manage access to it.

> Where is the difference to
> partOf? If you own a collection does this imply that you also own each
> part of it?

Probably.

Bruce

[sieh...@googlemail.com]

Bruce wrote:

>> To specify the location, you could use dct:spatial which is a
>> subproperty of dc:coverage.
>
> No, that doesn't work.

Why?

>> I could not find a hook where to put the
>> ownership in dublin core and so bibo:owner has no superproperty. A
>> "holder"/"heldBy" property could be useful in addition but what does
>> it mean to hold something? You may own it or you may give access to it
>> or you may at least keep an eye on it?
>
> I'm not an archivist, but I am imagining some collection of document
> owned by some organization, but who gives an archives rights to hold,
> maintain, and manage access to it.

Looks like the difference between "owner" and "holder" is the
difference between ownership and possession as described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_(law). Although bibo should
not encode a specific legal system, the difference between actually
controlling something (holding, possession) and the right to control
something (ownership) is general enough to distinguish. maybe a native
speaker can better explain the difference in scope notes of the
resulting RDF properties.

> > Where is the difference to
> > partOf? If you own a collection does this imply that you also own each
> > part of it?
>
> Probably.

I am not sure - but for this case partOf is not the right relation
anyway.

Jakob

[Aaron Rubinstein]

Bruce D'Arcus wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:18 AM, jakob...@gbv.de
> <sieh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> To specify the location, you could use dct:spatial which is a
>> subproperty of dc:coverage.
>
> No, that doesn't work.
>
>> I could not find a hook where to put the
>> ownership in dublin core and so bibo:owner has no superproperty. A
>> "holder"/"heldBy" property could be useful in addition but what does
>> it mean to hold something? You may own it or you may give access to it
>> or you may at least keep an eye on it?
>
> I'm not an archivist, but I am imagining some collection of document
> owned by some organization, but who gives an archives rights to hold,
> maintain, and manage access to it.

In most cases, an archive does "own" the collections it holds but there
are cases where an archive acts as the steward for a collection while
not technically owning that collection. I think "heldBy" conveys this
sense of stewardship that should be true whether the archive owns the
collection or not.

Would it make sense to see bibo:owner as a sub-property of bibo:heldBy
or does this not address other use cases than the one I have in mind?
It would be nice to have a super-property for this somewhere in dc
terms. It seems like functionality that would address a large community
of users. For now, it would be great to have this in bibo.

>> Where is the difference to
>> partOf? If you own a collection does this imply that you also own each
>> part of it?
>
> Probably.

There are cases where, for example, an individual's papers are spread
throughout several archives. From an archival perspective, however,
these are seen as separate, discrete, collections, so yes, a
Manuscript/Document is always partOf a Collection that is heldBy an
institution.

Thanks,

Aaron