AW: [Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten] Definition and scope of Holding

Klee, Carsten Carsten.Klee at
Fri Apr 26 09:52:15 CEST 2013

Hi Jakob, Philipp and everybody!

I just want to get sure that I'm not going in the wrong direction again. What I understand what Jakob said about the usage of the Document Service Ontology can be expressed in an example:

:Holding dso:hasService [
    a dso:Loan ;
(Now I want to express the ssso status (executed / lent). But I don't know how...)
] .

Are there anymore entities in the "service portfolio" like Philipp proposed, which a holding ontology should describe? Or could that be left to dso/ssso?



Carsten Klee
Abt. Überregionale Bibliographische Dienste IIE
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Fon:  +49 30 266-43 44 02

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten-bounces at [mailto:dini-ag-kim-
> bestandsdaten-bounces at] Im Auftrag von Voß, Jakob
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 22:06
> An: dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at
> Betreff: Re: [Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten] Definition and scope of Holding
> Philipp Zumstein wrote:
> > I see three different aspects for "holding":
> > 1) general holding information
> That's what a holding ontology should aim at.
> > 2) service portfolio
> See (which is based on
> > 3) current status
> >
> > Examples for 3) are: available/not available, on the loan, stolen, not
> > on the shelf, loan possible at the moment?.
> I use to model the current status as simple boolean relation between a
> holding and a service. Either a holding is currently available for a
> specific service or it is unavailable. This includes your examples
> "available/not available" and "loan possible at the moment". The
> other examples "on the loan, stolen, not on the shelf" better belong
> to the general holding information.
> > Examples for 1) are call number, location on a shelf, bill number,
> > acquisition date, corresponding title, and "owner" of an item.
> Thanks for putting quotes around "owner". There can be many different
> kinds of relations between a holding and an agent (organization or
> individual):
> * a library stores the holding in their stacks
> * another institution legally owns the holdings
> * a patron has a holding on loan at home
> * a theft has a stolen holding
> > By the way, I think with most of the "holding" definition are not
> > perfect. For example with patron driven acquisition (PDA), you are
> > not "holding" the items (you haven't bought the ebooks yet), still you
> > provide a service to your users. Another example is a database,
> > which you are not the owner of, but still you provide a service to
> > your costumer (maybe for a limited time).
> So the concept of ownership is misleading for definition of holdings.
> The idea of "providing a service" looks more promising. However, as
> I wrote in my last mail, a definition of holding is less relevant than
> a definition of holding properties and relations.
> Jakob_______________________________________________
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at

More information about the Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list