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

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 06:34:27 -0800
Message-ID: <20110309063427.96113958dz3rv1f7@kcoyle.net>
To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:50:06PM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Tom, are you thinking that this is a statement for the group's report?
>
> If we agree on it, then yes, this is the sort of statement
> I think the report should make.  The text makes reference to
> FRBR and RDA but the point is more general.  If we think it
> is close enough but needs improvement, we should word-smith.

Actually, the shortest possible statement seems to be:

Current library data standards were developed under pre-semantic web  
concepts and are difficult to render as linked data.

:-)

kc


>
> The more general issue is that we need to keep trying to
> distill our discussion into text for the report or we'll
> never make the May target...
>
> Tom
>
>>
>> kc
>>
>> Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:35:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 March 2011 14:35:06 GMT