RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Sorry, my example should have dealt with Dan's point of person_123_as_politician. Here's a (too?) fanciful way for modeling the "_as_" part:

abox:Jane_Austen_as_politician
 rdf:type foaf:Person ;
 rdf:type tbox:Politician ;
 rdfs:comment "This entity identifies Jane Austen as-a politician" ;
 umbel:isLike dbpedia:Jane_Austen ; # is this cheating?
 owl:differentFrom dbpedia:Jane_Austen .

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:13 AM
> To: 'Dan Brickley'; Ed Summers
> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
> 
> Regarding person_123_as_politician, person_123_as_parent,
> person_123_as_author, my feeling is these would be better modeled as
> owl:Classes instead of skos:Concepts. For example:
> 
> abox:person_123 rdf:type foaf:Person ;
>  rdf:type tbox1:Politician ;
>  rdf:type tbox2:Parent ;
>  rdf:type tbox3:Author .
> 
> That's how DBpedia seems to do it and I think it's helpful that way.
> Here are the types for Jane Austen:
> 
> rdf:type
> 
>     * foaf:Person
>     * yago:EnglishWomenWriters
>     * yago:PeopleFromHampshire
>     * yago:Person100007846
>     * yago:EnglishNovelists
>     * yago:WomenNovelists
>     * yago:EnglishRomanticFictionWriters
>     * yago:PeopleFromReading,Berkshire
>     * yago:19th-centuryEnglishPeople
>     * yago:WomenOfTheRegencyEra
>     * yago:18th-centuryEnglishPeople
> 
> I admit the classes get a little crazy sometimes and wouldn't assume
> they are used consistently, but I think most of them make intuitive
> sense.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Dan Brickley
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:19 AM
> > To: Ed Summers
> > Cc: public-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
> >
> > On 13 April 2011 14:50, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > First, let me just say I'm a big fan of the simplifications that
> you
> > > and Thom are proposing ... they are clearly a big improvement. But
> I
> > > am wondering about the foaf:focus pattern that you are promoting.
> > >
> > > I know I've said this before privately in IRC to various people,
> but
> > > it's probably worth asking aloud here. Is it really necessary to
> use
> > > URIs to distinguish between the thing itself, and the concept of
> the
> > > thing?
> >
> > As a loose rule, I see value in the latter when the thing figures in
> > some SKOS scheme, either to be mentioned alongside other related
> > entities (also indirectly as concepts) or so that
> > person_123_as_politician, person_123_as_parent, person_123_as_author
> > could be distinguished as different topics. There is value in that,
> > both for using those topic URIs to characterise information, but also
> > to talk in more detail about skills/expertise. Someone might be a
> > world export on "President George Bush snr. as a manager".
> >
> > I tend to see your question as a variant on "why both using SKOS RDF
> > to describe concepts of thing, when I could just describe the world
> > directly in RDF?".
> >
> > That's a fair question. I find
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L1045 still a
> > useful overview...
> >
> > Dan
> >

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 14:33:00 UTC