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 McCusker

Data Scientist
5AM Solutions

PhD Student
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
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