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

Re: VIAF contributor model

From: Manue <manue@figoblog.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:13:54 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+9=7T+i9NV8=OD5EFX5PiJ=7bVmjCRnW0HnAe@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>

This sounds like a very good approach.

As we were discussing during the F2F, authorities are about names, and
not about the real thing, so it makes sense to use SKOS. SKOS  is
perfectly fit for prefLabel, altLabel, etc. so why reinvent the wheel.
Then, it's also nice to be able to describe the thing that is named.
There, foaf:person and foaf:organisation are probably useful when it
comes to persons and corporate bodies, which is what VIAF is about
until now.

So, what's important is that there are 2 resources, 2 different
entities with each its URI : the authority (a SKOS concept) and the
RWO (a FOAF agent).
We could even add a 3rd one for the record if needed to track
provenance metadata (see [1]).

As for using RDA and FRAD, maybe they will be best fit for our data in
the end, but this should not prevent us to still use SKOS and FOAF if
we want a real uptake of our data outside the library community.
So back to a subject we touched during the F2F : these domain-specific
vocabularies should find a way to link themselves to the more general
ones, either by declaring equivalent properties or sub classes or
whatever. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for implementers (like
VIAF) to know how to articulate them.

One of the added values of RDF, in my view, is that
ontology/vocabulary producers can provide insight on mapping their
entities to other standards, when relevant, in a pretty simple way.
Which was not really the case with MARC or XML formats. This should
help people who own the data create constitent mappings.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2010Aug/0021.html

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> Karen,
> I assume you're talking about URI hash fragments here. I'm not using
> "#skos:Concept" for persons, I'm using "#skos:Concept" for skos:Concepts
> and "#foaf:Person" for foaf:Persons. These are two separate entities.
> Even though I identified these separately in VIAF early on, the
> need/purpose of doing so was unclear to me until Martin showed me the
> foaf:focus property last weekend. What it means is that SELIBR, DNB, and
> other VIAF contributors can disagree on the identity of the skos:Concept
> (including preferred and alternate labels) while still agreeing (via
> VIAF algorithms and owl:sameAs) on the identity of "the thing".
> (I wish I had gotten my bachelor's degree in the engineering college
> rather than the business college. What is the term we alchemists should
> use when we mean "axiom"?)
> Jeff
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:46 PM
>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Cc: public-lld
>> Subject: Re: VIAF contributor model
>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> >
>> > http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/#foaf:Person
>> >
>> > http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/#skos:Concept
>> >
>> I don't understand why you are using #skos:Concept for Persons/Agents.
>> Is it because they are marked that they can also be used in subject
>> headings in the MARC name authorities file? Or some other reason?
>> kc
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 06:14:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:39 UTC