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

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

From: Carsten Saathoff <saathoff@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:36:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4A939468.6030405@uni-koblenz.de>
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24.08.2009 15:56, Ross Singer wrote:
> My design had a distinction between "a person as a creator" (i.e. a
> MARC 100 field) vs. "a person as a subject" (a MARC 600 field) -- that
> is to say, they had distinct URIs (although, really, the SKOS concept
> was the same URI with "#concept" tacked to the end).
[...]
> Rob Styles made an interesting rebuttal to my point about William
> Shakespeare (re: the MARC 100 and 600 fields):  they are actually
> describing the same thing, but it's not what we think of as a
> "person".  It's a "bibliographic identity" (which is why Samuel
> Clemens and Mark Twain are distinct from each other).  This is an
> interesting (and, in my mind, rational) interpretation, but I'm not
> sure how it then affects modeling the creator resources if they aren't
> people but "bibliographic identities".

I see this even a bit differently. I would say that in both cases you
are talking about the _person_ William Shakespear. However, they way you
reference this person is different. "Creator" or "subject" are roles
that the person William Shakespear plays in certain contexts. The same
is true for being a "bibliographic entity". But in any case, William
Shakespeare is a person. So I think it is wrong to assert sth. like
"William Shakespeare" is a "creator", or is a "bibliographic entity".

What is required is a contextualized view, IMO. A (rather heavyweight)
example for such a mechanism is Descriptions and Situations from Dolce.
But the same effect should be achievable in a easier way if you can
focus on a specific use case. Then you can express exactly that in
certain cases this person acts as a subject, and in another case it acts
as a creator. But in both cases you are referencing the person.

best

Carsten

- -- 
Carsten Saathoff - ISWeb - http://isweb.uni-koblenz.de/

In the end, what mattered wasn’t that we did everything right, but that
our fundamental approach was flexible and resilient. --- Eric Ries

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqTlGgACgkQSyub37CCki58GwCgjg+oWTWf9uswzaMelwuloVyp
DWAAnj+vK3c1lQCPlqfJ4/lAdqwMNtb+
=XHpt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 09:30:50 UTC

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