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

Re: Linked Library Holdings/Items

From: Adrian Pohl <pohl@hbz-nrw.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:06:59 +0200
Message-Id: <4EA1D0E3020000140004283C@agrippa.hbz-nrw.de>
To: <public-lld@w3.org>
Hello Jakob,

just a few comments on DAIA after I had a look at [0] and [1] and compared it with overview [2] which is product of my thesis[3]:

* You don't use a "collection" class in this model, at most implicitely through the properties daia:collectedBy/daia:inCollection. Is there a specific reason for this? Did you consider using a class like dcmitype:Collection (which is especially useful for libraries with more than one collection which differ with regard to opening hours, location, access...)
** If you have the collection class it makes sense to use cld:isAccessedVia for relating a collection to a service. As items are parts of collections the access service for an item could be inferred for an item. If you really don't see sense in having statements about collections then daia:availableFor makes sense...
* I don't get the daia:Storage class. Why would you need this? Can't you just use a more general class like dcterms:Location or so? Also, if one uses a "Collection" class, collections can be linked to a location and the information can be inferred for items which are part of the collection. This might be an advantage, e.g. if a whole collection is moved to another location only few triples have to be changed...
* Instead of daia:Service you probably could use dcmitype:Service.
* The daia:provides property is useful as there's only one similar property gr:hasPOS which implies the object being a "Location" - which does fit well with "physical" services like a loan desk or reference desk but not with online services like an  OPAC, an open data dump, a SRU interface, a chat bot etc. It might make sense to discriminate between online and offline services as the last have locations, opening hours etc.
* Regarding the URI scheme for the DAIA ontology: The URIs for the daia:Service are confusing because the prefix version has a slash in it and it starts with a lower case which makes you think - by common practice - that it's the name of an RDF property. Did you want to put the superclass-subclass semantics into the URI?

We probably should - like Karen proposed - establish a community group which aligns different approaches into a comprehensive set of vocabularies for best practices in describing libraries, their services, items, their availability, collections (?) etc. Is there a specific procedure for creating such a group?

All the best
Adrian

[0] http://www.gbv.de/wikis/cls/DAIA#DAIA_model_as_graph

[1] http://uri.gbv.de/ontology/daia/

[2] https://wiki1.hbz-nrw.de/download/attachments/2330053/general-description.png?version=1&modificationDate=1318421617002 See also for representing organizational structures: https://wiki1.hbz-nrw.de/download/attachments/2330053/general-example-units.png?version=1&modificationDate=1318422082772

[3] http://hdl.handle.net/10760/16175
Received on Friday, 21 October 2011 18:07:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 October 2011 18:07:52 GMT