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

RE: Discussion on openbiblio-dev about relative merits of rdf bibliographic models

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:06:20 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909BF78A5@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-lld" <public-lld@w3.org>
Antoine,

For maximum effect, I would argue that the data provider can support
both (and others) at runtime from their existing "records". For example:

<http://example.org/bib/12345> a marc:record . (303 redirect to...)
<http://example.org/bib/12345/> (generic document content-negotiation
to...)
<http://example.org/bib/12345/default.html>
<http://example.org/bib/12345/marc21.xml>

BIBO and FaBIO resource can piggy-back on the generic document with hash
URIs like so:

<http://example.org/bib/12345/#fabio:JournalArticle> a
Fabio:JournalArticle .
<http://example.org/bib/12345/#bibo:Article> a bibo:Article

Because these resources share the same generic document, the two "views"
can be delivered in unison from the same Web document:

<http://example.org/bib/12345/about.rdf>

If it turns out that the BIBO and FaBIO communities like their peas and
carrots separate, they could be delivered that way also:

http://example.org/bib/12345/bibo.rdf
http://example.org/bib/12345/fabio.rdf

Keep in mind that I'm suggesting the data provider do this at runtime
(e.g. using MVC Views) to avoid storing the information redundantly.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:59 AM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: FW: Discussion on openbiblio-dev about relative merits of rdf
> bibliographic models
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> An interesting post, linking to an "FRBR-aligned" ontology in RDF
which
> might be of interest for those here who are developing an FRBR
ontology
> ;-) . In particular, it would be interesting to know whether that
> ontology can be mapped to the core FRBR one as an application profile
> of it, even though it was developed before...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:19:16 +0100
> From: Ben O'Steen <bosteen@gmail.com>
> Subject: [open-bibliography] Discussion on openbiblio-dev about
> 	relative merits of rdf bibliographic models
> To: List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data
> 	<open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID: <1284650356.25893.33.camel@monster>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openbiblio-dev/2010-
> September/000074.html
> 
> I posted this to the -dev list, so as not to bog everyone down with
> discussions of ontologies and the like, but my aim is that I produce
> data in a model that is useful to most people straight off the bat.
> 
> So comments are very welcome :)
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 14:06:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 September 2010 14:06:58 GMT