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

Re: Library data diagram

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:21:17 -0400
To: "Panzer,Michael" <panzerm@oclc.org>
Cc: Andy Powell <andy.powell@eduserv.org.uk>, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100901192117.GA2624@octavius>
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:01:16PM -0400, Michael Panzer wrote:
> > Application Profiles constrain/describe what the DC Abstract Model calls
> > Description Sets (what we might have called metadata records in the past)
> > - collections of one or more Descriptions. Application Profiles do not
> > describe vocabularies.
> 
> The same could be done with OWL(2), but you would likely run into
> problems with the open world assumption, amplified by missing
> disjointness axioms at some point (see Pete Johnston's post from today,
> who also points to resources on how OWL can be used as a constraint
> language).
> 
> Rules languages (as standardized by RIF) might be able to hit the sweet
> spot here: compatible to OWL/RDF and with a place in the semantic web
> architecture, but apparently easier for making (and controlling)
> assertions not about "a world" but a given "document."

It would be great if someone could bring these ideas into the
discussion at the "joint meeting" on 22 October in Pittsburgh
[1] -- especially if these approaches are actually being
applied somewhere.

Any volunteers, even for a lightning presentation?

Tom

[1] http://www.asis.org/Conferences/DC2010/program-sessions.html#jointmeeting

-- 
Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 19:21:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 September 2010 19:21:56 GMT