W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 22:13:37 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpd=WarG=4vNxLWiQ0+xYJAfmmrVYR7_Ak98ar@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 March, Ross wrote:
> > This is not to say that the FRBR model is wrong or even necessarily
> flawed.
> > I just think that applying it verbatim to RDF through OWL with an
> > application profile that is intended to enforce its rules is more likely
> a
> > barrier to adoption than it is insurance of semantic interoperability.
> On Tue, 8 March, Jeff wrote:
> > The constraints found in OWL could be enforced by another layer such as
> > Pellet ICV or Application Profiles, but we shouldn't assume these layers
> > are implied in the "strictness of FRBRer".
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > I strongly agree with the thought that an entity can be given a URL, and
> > thereby you can finesse the need for the "concept is the sum of its
> > properties" approach. We will have many similar cases in the museum
> world,
> > where information about an entity of interest (person, place, event, ...)
> > will be incomplete, or uncertain, or both. This shouldn't stop us from
> > asserting what we _do_ know (or believe).
> To summarize, can we say the following?
> FRBR and RDA can improve the precision of resource description
> and increase the opportunities for sharing descriptions at
> various levels by making modeling distinctions grounded in
> a coherent intellectual model.
> However, for the linked data context, outside of the library
> silo -- where knowledge about the things being described may
> be imperfect, where the people making descriptions may have
> an imperfect grasp of the models or of their applicability,
> and where people may have data or software that lack clear
> support of the models -- FRBR and RDA should be made available
> for use in a form that is ontologically tolerant.
> The sort of strict enforcement of rules and that served the
> cause of data sharing in a time when data exchange required
> the integrity of shared formats is not only not necessary
> in the more loosely aligned linked data context - it is
> counterproductive.
> The FRBR and RDA vocabularies can be defined in an
> ontologically tolerant manner, such that data which uses the
> models imperfectly -- or data about things to which the models
> imperfectly apply -- will not raise fatal exceptions when
> linked with data that may be simpler, vaguer, or simply based
> on different models.  Apparent misalignments, or contradictions
> to the logic of the models, or gaps in descriptions, should
> be flagged with nothing stronger than helpful error messages.
> Application profiles, whether defined using OWL constraints
> or through other means, still provide a way to constrain the use
> of such vocabularies to an arbitrary degree of strictness
> for the purposes of enforcing data integrity within a silo.
> Hard-coding such constraints into the vocabularies themselves
> imposes that ontological strictness on all downstream users
> of the vocabularies, thus raising the bar to their adoption
> and compromising their potential impact outside of the
> library world.

A definite +1 from me.  I think this summarizes the issue of balance quite


> Tom
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those
> of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message
> and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of
> the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then
> please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this
> e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
> Talis North America is Talis Inc., 11400 Branch Ct., Fredericksburg, VA
> 22408, United States of America.
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 03:14:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:43 UTC