BIBO 1.3 proposal
Frederick Giasson
I everybody, I started to take a look at this yesterday night. Here is
what I have done so far, and 2 remaining questions I have. As soon as I
have an agreement on the two questions bellow, I will publish the new
BIBO version 1.3 file on the SVN. I also cleaned it a bit further.
Added:
---------
- bibo:numPages
- bibo:numVolumes
- bibo_status:legal
Some questions are remaining:
---------------------------------------
(1) "bibo:assignee": in Zotero, what is it used for and what would be
the definition of this property? (what would be the domain and range? It
is related to law stuff, but I would need more information about how it
is expected to be used.
(2) "bibo:handle": always a need for it? If so, what would it be? (can't
find anything back on the Google Group :|)
(3) about the "relators" discussion
(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
the bibo ontology?
Thanks
Take care,
Fred
Bruce D'Arcus
>
> Hi all!
>
>
> I everybody, I started to take a look at this yesterday night. Here is
> what I have done so far, and 2 remaining questions I have. As soon as I
> have an agreement on the two questions bellow, I will publish the new
> BIBO version 1.3 file on the SVN. I also cleaned it a bit further.
>
>
> Added:
> ---------
>
> - bibo:numPages
> - bibo:numVolumes
I've mentioned this twice before, but I think people are missing it:
seems to me numVolumes makes no sense unless we're talking about a
MultiVolumeBook?
> - bibo_status:legal
I thought we agreed that the existing bibo:status property was
sufficient? Would help to know what the values might be.
> Some questions are remaining:
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> (1) "bibo:assignee": in Zotero, what is it used for and what would be
> the definition of this property? (what would be the domain and range? It
> is related to law stuff, but I would need more information about how it
> is expected to be used.
>
> (2) "bibo:handle": always a need for it? If so, what would it be? (can't
> find anything back on the Google Group :|)
It's an identifier.
> (3) about the "relators" discussion
> (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
> question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
> this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
> basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
> etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
> are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
> right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
> ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
> the bibo ontology?
As I said, I don't think all the MARC relatiors are entirely
appropriate translated directly to BIBO. We don't really want
bibo:wordsBy, bibo:introductionBy and such; do we?
Bruce
Frederick Giasson
>> ---------
>>
>> - bibo:numPages
>> - bibo:numVolumes
>>
>
> I've mentioned this twice before, but I think people are missing it:
> seems to me numVolumes makes no sense unless we're talking about a
> MultiVolumeBook?
>
I described it this way: <bibo:numVolumes> with a domain
<bibo:Collection>? This would mean the number of volumes in a collection
(series, periodical, etc).
It really depends how it is used, and what it means, for Zotero.
Otherwise, what would be an example of a MultiVolumeBook? Isn't simply a
series or such?
>> - bibo_status:legal
>>
>
> I thought we agreed that the existing bibo:status property was
> sufficient? Would help to know what the values might be.
>
Sorry. This is an individual of the class bibo:DocumentStatus. So you
would use it that way:
<resource> bibo:status <bibo_status:legal> .
(a document has a legal status).
Maybe I missed something vis-a-vis the usage of this "legal" thing?
>> Some questions are remaining:
>> ---------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> (1) "bibo:assignee": in Zotero, what is it used for and what would be
>> the definition of this property? (what would be the domain and range? It
>> is related to law stuff, but I would need more information about how it
>> is expected to be used.
>>
>> (2) "bibo:handle": always a need for it? If so, what would it be? (can't
>> find anything back on the Google Group :|)
>>
>
> It's an identifier.
>
Yes, but I don't remember what it identifies (what was the system) since
it appears thatwe have some Search issues with this group... Do you
still have a link to this system?
>> (3) about the "relators" discussion
>> (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
>> question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
>> this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
>> basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
>> etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
>> are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
>> right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
>> ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
>> the bibo ontology?
>>
>
> As I said, I don't think all the MARC relatiors are entirely
> appropriate translated directly to BIBO. We don't really want
> bibo:wordsBy, bibo:introductionBy and such; do we?
>
No, for these examples we don't. So, it is why we have a couple of choices:
(1) we create the ones that make sense under bibo's namespace
(2) we add the ones we think make sense for bibo in the bibo ontology
file (while using their URI)
(3) we just mention their existance on the website (to be released).
Thanks,
Fred
Bruce D'Arcus
>
> Hi Bruce!
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> - bibo:numPages
>>> - bibo:numVolumes
>>>
>>
>> I've mentioned this twice before, but I think people are missing it:
>> seems to me numVolumes makes no sense unless we're talking about a
>> MultiVolumeBook?
>>
> Sorry, maybe I should have added the way I described it.
>
> I described it this way: <bibo:numVolumes> with a domain
> <bibo:Collection>? This would mean the number of volumes in a collection
> (series, periodical, etc).
>
> It really depends how it is used, and what it means, for Zotero.
>
> Otherwise, what would be an example of a MultiVolumeBook? Isn't simply a
> series or such?
No. Consider Marx's "Capital".
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital>
>>> - bibo_status:legal
>>>
>>
>> I thought we agreed that the existing bibo:status property was
>> sufficient? Would help to know what the values might be.
>
> Sorry. This is an individual of the class bibo:DocumentStatus. So you
> would use it that way:
>
> <resource> bibo:status <bibo_status:legal> .
>
> (a document has a legal status).
>
> Maybe I missed something vis-a-vis the usage of this "legal" thing?
I don't think that's the intention. Consider a Bill that gets passed
into law, at which point it's legal status changes.
But maybe Simon can remind us.
>>> Some questions are remaining:
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) "bibo:assignee": in Zotero, what is it used for and what would be
>>> the definition of this property? (what would be the domain and range? It
>>> is related to law stuff, but I would need more information about how it
>>> is expected to be used.
>>>
>>> (2) "bibo:handle": always a need for it? If so, what would it be? (can't
>>> find anything back on the Google Group :|)
>>>
>>
>> It's an identifier.
>
> Yes, but I don't remember what it identifies (what was the system) since
> it appears thatwe have some Search issues with this group... Do you
> still have a link to this system?
The thread is here:
>>> (3) about the "relators" discussion
>>> (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
>>> question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
>>> this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
>>> basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
>>> etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
>>> are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
>>> right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
>>> ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
>>> the bibo ontology?
>>>
>>
>> As I said, I don't think all the MARC relatiors are entirely
>> appropriate translated directly to BIBO. We don't really want
>> bibo:wordsBy, bibo:introductionBy and such; do we?
>>
> No, for these examples we don't. So, it is why we have a couple of choices:
>
> (1) we create the ones that make sense under bibo's namespace
> (2) we add the ones we think make sense for bibo in the bibo ontology
> file (while using their URI)
> (3) we just mention their existance on the website (to be released).
Makes sense.
Bruce
Frederick Giasson
>> Sorry, maybe I should have added the way I described it.
>>
>> I described it this way: <bibo:numVolumes> with a domain
>> <bibo:Collection>? This would mean the number of volumes in a collection
>> (series, periodical, etc).
>>
>> It really depends how it is used, and what it means, for Zotero.
>>
>> Otherwise, what would be an example of a MultiVolumeBook? Isn't simply a
>> series or such?
>>
>
> No. Consider Marx's "Capital".
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital>
>
Well, the "work" Das Kapital is a whole, but it is published in a series
of books no?
I fear we introduce some more complex concepts which are already in
BIBO. Isn't a volume a book, or publication, part of a collection
(periodical, series, etc). And then, the number of volumes of a series
is a property part of the collection (series of volumes)?
Otherwise be really specific and give me the exact definition of a
MultiVolumeBook, its characteristics, and how it differs from what I
said above, and more importantly, how this would be handled and
described by applications such as Zotero?
>>>> - bibo_status:legal
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought we agreed that the existing bibo:status property was
>>> sufficient? Would help to know what the values might be.
>>>
>> Sorry. This is an individual of the class bibo:DocumentStatus. So you
>> would use it that way:
>>
>> <resource> bibo:status <bibo_status:legal> .
>>
>> (a document has a legal status).
>>
>> Maybe I missed something vis-a-vis the usage of this "legal" thing?
>>
>
> I don't think that's the intention. Consider a Bill that gets passed
> into law, at which point it's legal status changes.
>
> But maybe Simon can remind us.
>
Hoo ok; then what you were saying is to create a bibo:legalStatus
(subproperty of bibo:status), with a class bibo:LegalDocumentStatus (or
such) with a series of legal status? Could yo give me a list of these
possible legal status?
>>>> Some questions are remaining:
>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) "bibo:assignee": in Zotero, what is it used for and what would be
>>>> the definition of this property? (what would be the domain and range? It
>>>> is related to law stuff, but I would need more information about how it
>>>> is expected to be used.
>>>>
>>>> (2) "bibo:handle": always a need for it? If so, what would it be? (can't
>>>> find anything back on the Google Group :|)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's an identifier.
>>>
>> Yes, but I don't remember what it identifies (what was the system) since
>> it appears thatwe have some Search issues with this group... Do you
>> still have a link to this system?
>>
>
> The thread is here:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/browse_thread/thread/dda8fb062fe2d689
Good thanks!
>>>> (3) about the "relators" discussion
>>>> (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
>>>> question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
>>>> this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
>>>> basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
>>>> etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
>>>> are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
>>>> right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
>>>> ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
>>>> the bibo ontology?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As I said, I don't think all the MARC relatiors are entirely
>>> appropriate translated directly to BIBO. We don't really want
>>> bibo:wordsBy, bibo:introductionBy and such; do we?
>>>
>>>
>> No, for these examples we don't. So, it is why we have a couple of choices:
>>
>> (1) we create the ones that make sense under bibo's namespace
>> (2) we add the ones we think make sense for bibo in the bibo ontology
>> file (while using their URI)
>> (3) we just mention their existance on the website (to be released).
>>
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
Which one would you prefer?
Thanks!
Fred
Adam M. Goldstein
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
>>> Sorry, maybe I should have added the way I described it.
>>>
>>> I described it this way: <bibo:numVolumes> with a domain
>>> <bibo:Collection>? This would mean the number of volumes in a
>>> collection
>>> (series, periodical, etc).
>>>
>>> It really depends how it is used, and what it means, for Zotero.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, what would be an example of a MultiVolumeBook? Isn't
>>> simply a
>>> series or such?
>>>
>>
>> No. Consider Marx's "Capital".
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital>
>>
> Well, the "work" Das Kapital is a whole, but it is published in a
> series
> of books no?
>
> I fear we introduce some more complex concepts which are already in
> BIBO. Isn't a volume a book, or publication, part of a collection
> (periodical, series, etc). And then, the number of volumes of a series
> is a property part of the collection (series of volumes)?
>
> Otherwise be really specific and give me the exact definition of a
> MultiVolumeBook, its characteristics, and how it differs from what I
> said above, and more importantly, how this would be handled and
> described by applications such as Zotero?
Another important work that's a multivolume work is the set of works
issued by Darwin reporting on the Zoology, Geology, an Botany of the
Beagle voyage. It is not a series, since installments did not come out
regularly.
Shouldn't the category be multivolume work or monograph, not book? A
book or set of books is the manner in which the content is
represented, but it's a single work with a single title, and
components such as parts and sections.
Apologies if this comment is not particularly well-formulated in terms
of the bibo scheme, but I thought it might help.
------------------
Adam M. Goldstein PhD, MSLIS
--
agold...@iona.edu
a.m.go...@mac.com
http://www.iona.edu/faculty/agoldstein
--
(914) 637-2717
--
Dept of Philosophy
Iona College
715 North Avenue
New Rochelle NY 10801
Frederick Giasson
>> Well, the "work" Das Kapital is a whole, but it is published in a
>> series
>> of books no?
>>
>> I fear we introduce some more complex concepts which are already in
>> BIBO. Isn't a volume a book, or publication, part of a collection
>> (periodical, series, etc). And then, the number of volumes of a series
>> is a property part of the collection (series of volumes)?
>>
>> Otherwise be really specific and give me the exact definition of a
>> MultiVolumeBook, its characteristics, and how it differs from what I
>> said above, and more importantly, how this would be handled and
>> described by applications such as Zotero?
>>
>
> Another important work that's a multivolume work is the set of works
> issued by Darwin reporting on the Zoology, Geology, an Botany of the
> Beagle voyage. It is not a series, since installments did not come out
> regularly.
>
> Shouldn't the category be multivolume work or monograph, not book? A
> book or set of books is the manner in which the content is
> represented, but it's a single work with a single title, and
> components such as parts and sections.
>
> Apologies if this comment is not particularly well-formulated in terms
> of the bibo scheme, but I thought it might help.
>
>
Well, first this is related to the FRBR Work split which we currently
don't support to keep things simple. So, yes I perfectly see what you
mean, but this kind of conceptualization is currently not integrated in
BIBO.
I start to think that we are clearly talking about two things:
(1) bibo:numVolumes is the number of volume in a collection. (a series,
etc). Is this property, for that purpose, is needed? I think this is
what Zotero needs (to be confirmed?)
(2) A new kind of document which is a MultiVolumeBook. It is not a book,
it is not an EditedBook, but it is a MultiVolumeBook. But my question
remain: what is a MultiVolumeBook? Is it a bibo:Document or a
bibo:Collection? How parts of a MultiVolumeBook are related to the
MultiVolumeBook instance? And then, do wealready have something in BIBO
to make it happen?
Let see Das Kapital as the work, with its expressions. One of the
expression is embodied in a manifestation which is a MultiVolumeWork.
However, is this MultiVolumeWork a document or a collection of
documents? I personally think it is the later, you seems to think about
this as the former. If a MultiVolumeWork is a document, you will have
to clearly give me all its characteristics, how it is supposed to be
used and described. Also, you will have to specify how it is related to (1).
Thanks!
Take care,
Fred
Valentinas
my examples can make things more complicated, but we will see...
In the series "Handbook of Economics" under number 20 we have a three-
volume "Handbook of Environmental Economics"
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description
(which are of kind EditedBook).
(Please try to code now the citation to the whole multi-volume.)
The series "Handbook of Economics" has ISSN (it is not seen in the
page indicated above), while each volume of "Handbook of
Environmental Economics" has its own ISBNs and subtitles.
Nevertheless, the chapters are numbered consecutively through all
three volumes. Looks like a single document..?
If I will want cite this three-volume as a whole, I will want to write
"3 vols." Like in case of "Lords of the ring", if I have on my shelf a
three-volume edition. The same in case of the three volumes of "The
Art of Computer Programming" of D.Knuth. This explains, for what
numVolumes can be used.
But this kind of citation could generate a multi-link to several
publication items, so publishers DDTs include nothing for this kind of
numVolumes neither for the category MultiVolumeBook. Noting in bibtex,
too.
Even worse example, as more often needed: when citing "Seminumerical
Algorithms", it would be strange not to mention it as "vol. 2" in "The
Art of Computer Programming". Naive users will tag "The Art of
Computer Programming" as a series (me too, before getting into
typesetting business). But it is not a series. What then? Everything
goes into the title (bibtex and like). Bad.
Series has ISSN. But try to explain this difference to all users.
Never. So introduction of MultiVolumeBook will introduce some
confusion. Again bad, but better.
On 16 Rugs, 20:18, Frederick Giasson <f...@fgiasson.com> wrote:
> I start to think that we are clearly talking about two things:
>
> (1) bibo:numVolumes is the number of volume in a collection. (a series,
> etc). Is this property, for that purpose, is needed?
> I think this is what Zotero needs (to be confirmed?)
>
> (2) A new kind of document which is a MultiVolumeBook. It is not a book,
> it is not an EditedBook, but it is a MultiVolumeBook. But my question
> remain: what is a MultiVolumeBook? Is it a bibo:Document or a
> bibo:Collection?
> How parts of a MultiVolumeBook are related to the MultiVolumeBook instance?
are examples where authors or titles are different. But if both, then
"the thing" will be hardly called a MultiVolumeBook.
> And then, do wealready have something in BIBO to make it happen?
>
> Let see Das Kapital as the work, with its expressions. One of the
> expression is embodied in a manifestation which is a MultiVolumeWork.
> However, is this MultiVolumeWork a document or a collection of
> documents?
the examples above more like Document(s).
Thinking about republished things in multi-volume "Selected works" of
one author clearly gives a Collection.
Best regards,
Valentinas
Frederick Giasson
> my examples can make things more complicated, but we will see...
>
> In the series "Handbook of Economics" under number 20 we have a three-
> volume "Handbook of Environmental Economics"
> http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookseriesdescription.cws_home/BS_HE/description
> (which are of kind EditedBook).
> (Please try to code now the citation to the whole multi-volume.)
>
> The series "Handbook of Economics" has ISSN (it is not seen in the
> page indicated above), while each volume of "Handbook of
> Environmental Economics" has its own ISBNs and subtitles.
> Nevertheless, the chapters are numbered consecutively through all
> three volumes. Looks like a single document..?
>
to "periodicals", or any kind of collections? It appears that it is only
to periodicals. If so, I will have to upgrade the ontology accordingly.
> If I will want cite this three-volume as a whole, I will want to write
> "3 vols." Like in case of "Lords of the ring", if I have on my shelf a
> three-volume edition. The same in case of the three volumes of "The
> Art of Computer Programming" of D.Knuth. This explains, for what
> numVolumes can be used.
>
to the three books. This is a mean to be able to refer to the "work" as
a whole, and not in parts.
So, we would endtup with something like this:
<resource-a> a bibo:Book;
dcterms:title "Big book: A".
<resource-b> a bibo:Book;
dcterms:title "Big book: B".
<resource-c> a bibo:Book;
dcterms:title "Big book: C".
<resource-multivolumebook> a bibo:MultiVolumeBook;
dcterms:title "Big book";
dcterms:hasPart <resource-a>;
dcterms:hasPart <resource-b>;
dcterms:hasPart <resource-c>;
bibo:numVolumes "3".
Here "bibo:MultiVolumeBook" would be a sub-class-of a bibo:Collection
(with all it implies).
Additionally, "bibo:numVolumes" would has a domain "bibo:Collection".
So, a bibo:MultiVolumeBook would only be used to specify that it is not
any kind of collection of books, but really a collection of books that
refer to a work "in a whole". So, they are more than "aggregated", but
they are really parts of a whole work.
Is it the good way to see this "MultiVolumeBook"?
Another question: do we want to keep "dcterms:hasPart" as the way to
relate a multivolumebook to its books; or do we want to createa
specialization of this property?
> But this kind of citation could generate a multi-link to several
> publication items, so publishers DDTs include nothing for this kind of
> numVolumes neither for the category MultiVolumeBook. Noting in bibtex,
> too.
>
> Even worse example, as more often needed: when citing "Seminumerical
> Algorithms", it would be strange not to mention it as "vol. 2" in "The
> Art of Computer Programming". Naive users will tag "The Art of
> Computer Programming" as a series (me too, before getting into
> typesetting business). But it is not a series. What then? Everything
> goes into the title (bibtex and like). Bad.
>
> Series has ISSN. But try to explain this difference to all users.
> Never. So introduction of MultiVolumeBook will introduce some
> confusion. Again bad, but better.
>
Yeah, as long as the definition is properly written :)
>> I start to think that we are clearly talking about two things:
>>
>> (1) bibo:numVolumes is the number of volume in a collection. (a series,
>>
>
> In collection, yes; but almost never in series (they are growing).
>
>
never, or almost never? And even if growing, we can change that number, no?
So, is this the way to go regarding this MultiVolumeWork discussion?
Bruce? scornblith? valentinas?
Also, some questions remaining in the previous mails as well (regarding
the legal stuff)
Thanks!
Take care,
Fred
Bruce D'Arcus
> So, is this the way to go regarding this MultiVolumeWork discussion?
>
> Bruce? scornblith? valentinas?
The example you posted farther up was what I was thinking. But Simon
asked for this (numVolumes), so let's see if can chime in. Whether we
introduce a new class is less important to me than the modeling; my
suspicion is that Simon was thinking the domain of the property would
be a bibo:Book, which neither of us agree with.
Bruce
skornblith
> > So, is this the way to go regarding this MultiVolumeWork discussion?
>
> > Bruce? scornblith? valentinas?
>
> The example you posted farther up was what I was thinking. But Simon
> asked for this (numVolumes), so let's see if can chime in. Whether we
> introduce a new class is less important to me than the modeling; my
> suspicion is that Simon was thinking the domain of the property would
> be a bibo:Book, which neither of us agree with.
it to BIBO in whatever way fits best. Originally, I was thinking only
of numberOfVolumes as a property of a bibo:Series, but I think that a
bibo:MultiVolumeBook makes sense as well.
Simon
Bruce D'Arcus
OK, so we're at least on the same page on that. I'd be fine with that as well.
> but I think that a bibo:MultiVolumeBook makes sense as well.
I'm officially agnostic on this. Fred?
Bruce
Ross Singer
>> (3) about the "relators" discussion
>> (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/loc.terms/relators/dc-contributor.html), a
>> question: why can't you only re-use them as-is? I have no problem for
>> this because all of them are subPropertiesOf dcterms:contributor. So
>> basically, they are at the same level as bibo:director, bibo:editor,
>> etc. So, can be re-used without any issue. Also, the domain and ranges
>> are not defined, so this mean that they are not "restricted" in anyway
>> right now. I could add them in BIBO and create some proper domains and
>> ranges if needed. Otherwise maybe it make senses just to list them in
>> the bibo ontology?
>
> As I said, I don't think all the MARC relatiors are entirely
> appropriate translated directly to BIBO. We don't really want
> bibo:wordsBy, bibo:introductionBy and such; do we?
>
are actually subproperties of dc elements, not dcterms. I think their
ambiguity of use would be problematic.
The RDA Vocabularies specify a whole slew of roles, as well, which
almost (but annoyingly do not completely) overlap:
http://RDVocab.info/roles.rdf
-Ross.
Frederick Giasson
I fixing everything locally according to this thread, the only remaining
question before releasing anything is related to:
"bibo_status:legal", see Bruce's comment here:
http://groups.google.com/group/bibliographic-ontology-specification-group/msg/c62aae5a025e4294
Thanks,
Fred