W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > January 2014

Re: FAQ- structured data about historical book collections

From: Jim McCusker <mccusker@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:41:13 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAtgn=RpZ3qdBPU-egq5f3wXPhijk1rH3imrRBiODehR5pd67Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com" <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
Cc: "public-esw-thes@w3.org" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Vladimir Alexiev <
vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> wrote:

> > I'm curious what your objections are to the PROV approach.
>
> PROV is not intended to describe bibliographic info; e.g. how do I state
> "page range" in PROV?
>

I see. Actually, my main suggestion was how to identify the collections as
they change through time - the members of those collections change, so you
need to represent the different versions as you go. PROV is not an answer
for everything, but can be a very valuable, practical upper level ontology.


> Or, let me turn the question around:
> what are your objections for using BIBO or FRBRoo for describing
> provenance?
>

None whatsoever, especially since I helped integrate
vocab.org/frbr/coreand PROV (see
http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/parallelIdentitiesOGD and
http://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/mccusker2012ipaw). Most things that you might say
in FRBR can be inferred into PROV.

Jim
-- 
Jim McCusker

Data Scientist
5AM Solutions
jmccusker@5amsolutions.com
http://5amsolutions.com

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
http://tw.rpi.edu
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 16:42:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 13:32:19 UTC