- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 07:11:36 -0700
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Haffner, Alexander <A.Haffner@d-nb.de> wrote: > >> However, back to the formats I don’t want to discuss J foaf doesn’t have the >> power to reflect our comprehensive data – I thought we want to make this >> high quality data available for the public –if so we should have a closer >> look modeling the data in FRBRer, FRAD and/or RDA in parallel to the SKOS >> representation. >> > I keep seeing this statement getting made: "FOAF/SKOS are not > expressive enough for our data" and I'm simply not buying it. > > Can somebody please back up this claim? FOAF defines personal and > organizational entities. SKOS defines concepts. > > Those are exactly the things we're describing. Ross, at a class level you are right. But if you look at the properties defined by foaf and the properties used in FRAD, there is virtually no overlap. So I think when people make that claim, they are talking about available properties, not classes. FRAD has about 10 classes and 132 properties[1]. Almost none of the properties are in foaf. There are also differences: FRAD has name as a class, foaf has name as a property. Dan offers to add to foaf, but as Diane and I warned in our blog posts [2] it's not so much a question of adding terms but how to manage the vocabulary-building process. FRAD comes out of a slow process that affects tens of thousands of institutions. My advice to Dan is: you don't want that process stepping on the light-footedness of foaf. kc [1] http://metadataregistry.org/schema/show/id/24.html [2] http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/search/label/FOAF or http://managemetadata.org/blog/2010/09/ > > -Ross. > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 14:12:12 UTC