W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Top three levels of Dewey Decimal Classification published as linked data

From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:26:58 +0100
Message-ID: <ec8613a80908241826r1830f0ffo5f2f953115751015@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>
Cc: "Panzer,Michael" <panzerm@oclc.org>, Ryan Shaw <ryanshaw@ischool.berkeley.edu>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, public-lod@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ross Singer<rossfsinger@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, yes, I think some more thought needs to go into Dewey and
> LCSH's relationship to the "real world".

I think http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/3282565132 might be relevant here

The classification that danbri uses in that diagram is quite
interesting. I paraphrase them as: things, types, web documents (or
information resources) and conceptualizations. I'm not attempting to
define them at the moment.

I tried to enumerate how these four categories interelate:

things <-> things via general rdf properties
things <-> types via rdf:type
things <-> web documents via foaf:topic/foaf:isTopicOf/rdfs:seeAlso

web documents <-> types via rdf:type, maybe via foaf:topic if the
document is describing the type
web documents <-> conceptualizations via dc:subject
web documents <-> web documents via rdfs:seeAlso etc

types <-> types via rdfs:subClassOf

conceptualizations <-> conceptualizations via skos:broader/skos:narrower/etc.

A couple were missing:

For things <-> conceptualizations I recently created ov:category [1]
and ov:isCategoryOf [2] which I used in productdb.org to link things
with their categories (e.g. http://productdb.org/2006-honda-element).
Using dc:subject didn't seem right - does a model of car have a
subject? This is what I would suggest you use to relate an author to a
category about them.

The other one that is missing is types <-> conceptualization

SKOS says there is no defined relationship [3]. Interestingly the RDF
Semantics has this to say [4]: "RDFS classes can be considered to be
rather more than simple sets; they can be thought of as
'classifications' or 'concepts' which have a robust notion of identity
which goes beyond a simple extensional correspondence. "

> -Ross.


[1] http://open.vocab.org/terms/category
[2] http://open.vocab.org/terms/isCategoryOf
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#L896
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#technote
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 01:27:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:23 UTC