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: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:55:21 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwup0Bi1_+9MYVU7b+z8obS2hYxAbKCMdt7GzW@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> One way to punt on this problem would be to treat the relationship between
> W&M as 1-to-1 for now (80/20 rule). This would create some alias URIs for
> Expressions and possibly conflate a few, but we could always come in later
> and use owl:sameAs to reconcile the aliases and improve the data mining to
> split those we conflate.

I'll probably be outnumbered on this, but I begin to feel somewhat
uncomfortable to assigning massive amounts of URIs for things in the absence
of knowing what they are.  This is further compounded by the fact that
they're being created because we have so little data to work with.

I can't help but feel there are lots of hidden costs here (persistence of
the deprecated "stub" URIs, being one, but even just the general fact that
you need to dereference -- and store -- an extra, not-terribly-valuable, URI
simply to get a CBD of the Manifestation), but I also, personally, feel it's
significantly easier to add data later, when we know with some more
confidence what it is we're describing, than it is to edit.  Especially at

Do others perceive this to be an issue?

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 16:55:54 UTC

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