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

Re: SemWeb terminology page

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:46:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4D0A2649.4040303@cs.vu.nl>
To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Hi,

Dropping back in rather late in this thread:

I would name

- a set of bibliographic records     -->  "dataset"
- values records use (e.g. LCSH)     -->  "value vocabularies"
- properties and classes records use -->  "metadata element sets".

In other words, I really dislike the suggestion of "dataset" for the 
group of things that has LCSH etc. in it.

If library folks would immediately identify "dataset" with "LCSH" then 
it's fine, but then my question is what they would call a set of 
bibliographic records.

Mark.

On 10/12/2010 2:04, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 08:01:34AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Note that Jenn Riley tackles semantic differences between library use
>> of terms and SemWeb use of terms in her (excellent!) slide presentation:
>>    http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/education/brownbags/fall2010/rdf/rdf.pdf
>> starting at slide 17. Some highlights:
>
> I'm on the road and this URL is timing out, so I cannot see
> the full document.  Just a few constructively intended
> reactions in response to the highlights...:
>
>> ?Subject?
>>
>> In libraries, what an information resource is about
>> In RDF, what a statement is about
>
> The "subject" of a triple, like the "subject" of
> a sentence, is of course what the statement is about.
>
> However, an RDF statement using, for example, the predicate
> dcterms:subject, says what the information resource is about
> -- no difference there.  I wouldn't want readers to think
> that RDF is somehow pushing people to think about "subject"
> in a completely alien way.  After all librarians, like all
> other users of natural-language grammar, form sentences about
> "subjects" just about every time they voice a thought :-)
>
>> "Class?
>>
>> In libraries, a classification scheme indicating the
>> general topic or area of knowledge covered by an
>> information resource
>> In RDF, a type or category that any type of object
>> or resource belongs to
>
> Hmm, would it not perhaps be more accurate to say:
>
>      In libraries, the general topic or area of knowledge
>      covered by an information resource as taken from (or
>      words to that effect) a classification scheme.
>
> Seen this way, the difference between the two is still there
> but is not quite as wide.
>
>> "Schema?
>>
>> XML Schema defines a set of elements intended to
>> be used together
>
> One could perhaps go one step further:
>
>      XML Schema defines a set of elements intended to
>      be used together in a specified document format.
>
>> RDF Schema defines classes and properties intended
>> to be used anywhere, alone or in combination
>
> Or more specifically:
>
>      RDF Schema defines classes and properties intended
>      to be used in RDF statements, either in isolation or
>      in the context of a set of statements.
>
> ...though that is perhaps too wordy.
>
> Tom
>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 14:46:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 December 2010 14:46:43 GMT