W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Open Library and RDF

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:02:21 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909591B5F@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Cc: "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
Jodi,

Maybe an example would help. This is how VIAF thinks about itself:

http://viaf.org/viaf.jpg

http://viaf.org/ontology/1.1/viafOntology.html


(Note that I've used UML and OWL as two different ways to represent the same model.)

At runtime, VIAF maps our "self-conceptualization" to other conceptual models like FOAF and SKOS.

Jeff


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 5:23 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-lld
> Subject: Re: Open Library and RDF
> 
> Jeff, what do you mean by 'self-conceptualized' here? -Jodi
> 
> On 15 Aug 2010, at 19:23, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 
> > Dan Brickley wrote:
> >>> People in our community mistakenly believe that foaf:Person is
> >>> unsuitable for use because of foaf:geekcode and other such
> >> properties.
> >>> Specialized models, including library models, are completely
> >> arbitrary.
> >>
> >> Can you say a bit more about what you mean by 'arbitrary' here?
> >
> > Not easily in an email. It's a combination of philosophy and
> experience. IMO, use cases are fundamental. Non-trivial models are
> evolutionary and their form depends on the order in which use cases are
> considered. Until we see how concepts are related in a formal model and
> applied to specific use cases, we just *think* we understand each other
> (and even ourselves). I believe that OWL/UML will make it easier for
> people to adapt to how other people/systems/themselves think, but only
> if the models don't expect us to believe too many arbitrary things in
> the process.
> >
> >>> I encourage you to keep your model as simple and intuitive as
> >> possible
> >>> and encourage specialized communities to do this instead:
> >>>
> >>> ex:Person a owl:Class ;
> >>>        owl:equivalentClass foaf:Person .
> >>
> >> Yes, I've heard that concern before, and this revision contains some
> >> steps towards addressing this.
> >>
> >> * some old 'demo' and fun terms have been flagged 'archaic'
> (although
> >> they will remain mentioned in the spec, as it is anti-social to
> >> pretend a piece of vocab never existed).
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why not use owl:DeprecatedProperty instead? I tried
> to use deprecation in the VIAF OWL and couldn't figure out how to
> preserve DL compliance. Eventually I had to abandon the stale concepts
> or else go crazy.
> >
> >> * substantial chunks of the spec's text have been moved to the Wiki;
> >> this will continue, so the footprint of a term within the main body
> of
> >> the spec text can be substantially reduced. Each term has a wiki
> page
> >> now, as standard.
> >> * The 'at a glance' overview of FOAF at top of spec now separates
> the
> >> 'Webby' properties from core people properties and is more explicit
> >> about cultural heritage aspects use cases for FOAF.
> >>
> >> I think this goes a healthy way towards reducing the perception of
> >> needless frivolity. The project has in fact always been a quite
> >> serious endeavour, despite the light tone. Serious both in the sense
> >> of promoting the notion of a Web of inter-linked RDF files, but also
> >> in terms of global ambition - I want young people discovering the
> Web
> >> to see a direct parallel between the friends and links they find in
> >> modern online 'social network' contexts, and the older, sometimes
> >> drier links that connect them via chains of collaboration,
> friendship
> >> and family to Paul Erdős, Marie Curie, Kevin Bacon, or Charles
> Darwin.
> >> And for the data to be there that makes those chains explicit and
> >> accessible to all. So in that sense, the bridging of 'social Web'
> and
> >> historical data is absolutely intended. However I don't want to
> >> embarrass anyone in a professional context with 'silly' properties,
> >> and I feel they have served their purpose of making a fun,
> accessible
> >> project that felt approachable and open to experimentation. So it is
> >> quite natural for things like 'geekcode' or 'dnaChecksum' to end up
> as
> >> historical footnotes now, and the emphasis to move towards finding
> fun
> >> things to do with the massive amounts of data we now have on hand.
> >
> > I certainly agree that FOAF is serious. In hindsight, it's just funny
> how many examples I had to run through in my head in order to believe
> every person is a foaf:Person. It’s the same basic problem with every
> thing being an owl:Thing. The more people who realize and trust these
> seemingly banal assertions, the more useful they will become.
> >
> >> Many of the original use cases in
> >> http://www.foaf-project.org/original-intro stemmed from the
> background
> >> Libby and I had in the digital library and subject gateway
> community,
> >> so at the risk of repeating myself here I'd like to get to the
> bottom
> >> of any 'x felt they couldn't use it because y' stories that are
> >> mentioned.
> >
> > I suspect people are senselessly waiting for grand unified/normalized
> models to emerge. I think the possibilities of this are yes and no. On
> the local "yes" side, I think each domain should have its own
> normalized self-conceptualization based on corporate lingo and use
> cases. On the global "no" side, the local self-conceptualization can be
> mapped to other popular/emergent models at runtime to communicate
> inside and outside their community. VIAF does this a little bit today,
> but in the future I hope we can be clearer about the conceptual
> separations. For example:
> >
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791 (self-conceptualized real world object)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/ (self-conceptualized generic document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/viaf.rdf (self-conceptualized Web
> document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/foaf.rdf (FOAF-conceptualized Web
> document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/skos.rdf (SKOS-conceptualized Web
> document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/rda.rdf (RDA-conceptualized Web
> document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/vcard.rdf (vCard-conceptualized Web
> document)
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/all.rdf (merged conceptualized Web
> document)
> > etc.
> >
> > I didn't pick the self-conceptualized RWO URI, but Andy Houghton and
> I are responsible suggesting hash URIs on the generic resource to
> identify "foreign" RWOs w/namespace prefixes to avoid collisions:
> >
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/27060791/#foaf:Person

> >
> > (I wish these hash URIs were wired up to do something useful in the
> HTML representation.)
> >
> > Regardless, this is a generalizable model that would allow systems to
> "conjure up" new conceptualizations from legacy conceptualizations
> without redesigning physical data models or breaking legacy system
> dependencies. I suspect this is an extremely valuable pattern, so I
> will write it up as an LLD XG use case after my vacation.
> >
> >> Other things I've heard mentioned are that there is no long
> >> term organizational backing behind the namespace yet, or that it
> isn't
> >> a 'proper standard' of some kind. The more explicit people are when
> >> describing obstacles, the more active we can be in addressing them.
> >
> > I assume organizational backing would be the death of FOAF because
> "they" will almost certainly load it down with debatable
> "improvements". :-/
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >>
> >> All that said, it is of course more than fine to express a link to
> the
> >> Web of FOAF data via owl:equivalentClass.
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >>
> >> Dan
> >
> 

Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 22:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:37 UTC