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

Re: Library data diagram

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 11:06:12 -0700
Message-ID: <20100903110612.5bweuaketi8k0sc8@kcoyle.net>
To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>:

>> that is required to implement such services is a recasting of   
>> current systems
>> and metadata to handle FRBR-ised records - but they remain records (the Work
>> record, the Expression record, etc.). This does not require LLD, so  
>>  I think we
>> are still finding it difficult to tease out the "why LLD is   
>> essential, rather
>> than desirable" angle.

I use service examples to explain why LLD is desirable. For example,  
even though it isn't LLD, I think the WorldCat Identities [1] could be  
easily achieved with LLD, rather than being just a research project of  
OCLC. And although the Open Library [2] is only partially LLD (it is  
actually key/value pairs, but they could be translated to triples), it  
shows the flexibility that is gained by having your data based on  
individual statements rather than wrapped up in records. (The  
"individual statements" aspect is as important, IMO, as the "linked"  
aspect of semantic web data.) The LLD aspects of these two (as opposed  
to what could be accomplished with FRBR) shows in the ability to  
create timelines, or to show statistically significant relationships  
between subject terms. I think doing FRBR as records gets us only half  
way there.

[1] http://www.worldcat.org/identities/
[2] http://openlibrary.org, for example  
http://openlibrary.org/subjects/place:algeria, and scroll down for  
related subjects

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 3 September 2010 18:06:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:37 UTC