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

Tue May 21 11:29:33 CEST 2013

Hi Carsten et al.,

I like your picture, also I am not sure if your connections to Service 
are the only possibilities here. However, I think we should concentrate 
for the moment at the information not related to services. How about 
postpone these questions, because we need here certainly the opinion of 
Jakob Voß.

What we could also add as general information is the status of item in 
the library: ordered, in-house, in-acquisition, ready, missing, ...

Best regards,
Philipp

Am 13.05.2013 08:06, schrieb Klee, Carsten:
> Hi Philipp and everyone!
>
> I was a little bit confused about the relations between Holdings,
> Documents, Agents and Services. So I tried to illustrate my thoughts and
> came up with a diagram which I want to share with you.
>
> The namespace holding stands for the new holding ontology (to be
> created). Therefore I borrowed some labels from the daia ontology [1],
> which like Jakob mentioned should be moved to a holding ontology [2].
>
> In my understanding Holding and Title are just descriptions of the
> entities Item and Document. An Item I think is a Document itself (a
> particular copy of a document). In museum and archive contexts Item and
> Document could be the same, because of the uniqueness of the entity.
>
> What Philipp tried to express is the "*general offer*, that the :Holding
> has the service :NormalLoan [...]". But now I think the general offer of
> services comes from the Agent and the Holding description just states if
> an Item is available / unavailable for the Service. So my example
> (Holding dso:hasService ...) was wrong I think.
>
> What I'm aiming to say is, that a Holding does not have to deal with
> service descriptions. The availability of documents (including Items as
> I think) could be expressed with the DAIA ontology (daia:availableFor /
> daia:unaivailableFor) within the Holding description.
>
> What do you think: Should the "service portfolio" scope be discarded
> from the Holding scope than???
>
> If we discard the "service portfolio" then the remaining scope of
> Holdings description would be:
>
> 1. general holdings information
>
> 2. current status
>
> (3. hooks)?
>
> I edited the "Scope of Holdings" Wiki page [3] and added another table
> "hooks", which describes the properties of Agent and Document linking to
> an Item.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Carsten
>
> [1] <http://uri.gbv.de/ontology/daia>
>
> [2] http://gbv.github.io/daiaspec/daia.html#relevant-differences-to-daia-0.5
>
> [3] <https://wiki.dnb.de/display/DINIAGKIM/Scope+of+Holdings>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 lists.d-nb.de [mailto:dini-ag-kim-
>
>> bestandsdaten-bounces at lists.d-nb.de] Im Auftrag von Philipp Zumstein
>
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 26. April 2013 10:48
>
>> An: dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at lists.d-nb.de
>
>> Betreff: Re: [Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten] Definition and scope of Holding
>
>>
>
>> Hi Jakob, Carsten et al.,
>
>>
>
>> I should definetely look closer at DSO, SSSO and your other
>
>> micro-ontologies. Your blog entry [1] was a good starting point. They
>
>> seem to cover a lot of aspects from the "service portfolio" and "current
>
>> status". Thus, we concentrate on the remaining parts, the general aspects?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> I tried to look at Carsten's example and found some flaw (or maybe I
>
>> didn't understand it correctly. Please help me to see if there is a
>
>> mistake in the argumentation:
>
>>
>
>> (just give the blank node a name):
>
>> :Holding dso:hasService :NormalLoan .
>
>> :NormalLoan a dso:Loan .
>
>>
>
>> (by the subclass relation of dso:Loan it follows)
>
>> :NormalLoan a dso:DocumentService .
>
>>
>
>> (by the subclass relation of dso:DocumentService it follows)
>
>> :NormalLoan a ssso:ServiceEvent .
>
>>
>
>> (http://gbv.github.io/ssso/ssso.html#overview):
>
>> "each ServiceEvent [...] is a not a general offer but a particular
>
>> activity in time. The activity typically takes place provided by at
>
>> least one particular ServiceProvider (e.g. a [...] library) and consumed
>
>> by at least one ServiceConsumer (e.g. a [...] patron)."
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> But I want to express the *general offer*, that the :Holding has the
>
>> service :NormalLoan, and not that it is at some time on loan to a
>
>> patron. How?
>
>>
>
>> Best regards,
>
>> Philipp
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> [1] http://jakoblog.de/2013/04/11/on-the-way-to-a-library-ontology/
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Am 26.04.2013 09:52, schrieb Klee, Carsten:
>
>> > 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:
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>>  > (Now I want to express the ssso status (executed / lent). But I don't
>
>> know how...)
>
>>
>
>> I guess for example:
>
>>
>
>> > :Holding dso:hasService [
>
>> >      a dso:Loan ;
>
>>
>
>>     a ssso:ExecutedService .
>
>>
>
>> > ] .
>
>> >
>
>> > 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?
>
>> >
>
>> > Cheers!
>
>> >
>
>> > Carsten
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>
>> > 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 lists.d-nb.de [mailto:dini-ag-
>
>> kim-
>
>> >> bestandsdaten-bounces at lists.d-nb.de] Im Auftrag von Voß, Jakob
>
>> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 22:06
>
>> >> An: dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at lists.d-nb.de
>
>> >> 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 http://gbv.github.io/dso (which is based on
>
>> >> http://gbv.github.io/ssso/ssso.html#overview)
>
>> >>
>
>> >>> 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 lists.d-nb.de
>
>> >> http://lists.d-nb.de/mailman/listinfo/dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten
>
>> > _______________________________________________
>
>> > Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
>
>> > Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at lists.d-nb.de
>
>> > http://lists.d-nb.de/mailman/listinfo/dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> Dr. Philipp Zumstein
>
>> Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
>
>> Fachreferat Mathematik und Informatik
>
>> Schloss Schneckenhof West / 68131 Mannheim
>
>> Tel. 0621/181-3067 bzw. 3006
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
>
>> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at lists.d-nb.de
>
>> http://lists.d-nb.de/mailman/listinfo/dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten mailing list
> Dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten at lists.d-nb.de
> http://lists.d-nb.de/mailman/listinfo/dini-ag-kim-bestandsdaten
>

-- 
Dr. Philipp Zumstein
Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
Fachreferat Mathematik und Informatik
Schloss Schneckenhof West / 68131 Mannheim
Tel. 0621/181-3067 bzw. 3006