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

Re: VIAF contributor model

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:10:05 -0700
Message-ID: <20101029071005.wd7bk2yzgg48s488@kcoyle.net>
To: Manue <manue@figoblog.org>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Manue <manue@figoblog.org>:

> Jeff,
>
> 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.

If authorities are about names, and those names are what we include in  
bibliographic descriptions (in libraries), where in library data would  
foaf:person be used?

(Somewhat answering my own question, I think that given this  
explanation, foaf:person would be used outside of the library data  
environment, so library authority data might link to other resources  
that focus on the person rather than the name. But I can't think of a  
place in library data would make reference to foaf:Person except,  
perhaps, in the administrative fields of the authority record.)

kc




>
> 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.
>
> Emmanuelle
>
> [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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
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 14:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 October 2010 14:10:42 GMT