W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2010

Re: is FRBR relevant?

From: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:15:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4C5FE33F.2030104@okfn.org>
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@OCLC.ORG>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 10-08-09 11:39, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> Maybe your concern is that authority control should give us
> identifiers not just uniform headings? I guess Karen's more recent
> post might be relevant to this thread:
> http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2009/08/frsad.html

This is the sort of think I don't think we need to wait for
Authorities to "give" us. Where we have uniform headings
strings we can just define a hash function to give us
stable identifiers, e.g. sha1("World War, 1939-1945").

Nothing stopping us from putting them in a namespace,
e.g. http://purl.org/net/lcsh#<sha1> that returns,

@prefix lcsh <http://purl.org/net/lcsh#>.

    dcam:member dc:LCSH ;
    rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945" .

It would be trivial to generate some inference rules as well,

{ ?x dcam:member dc:LCSH .
   ?x rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945 } =>
{ ?x owl:sameAs lcsh:672369b2e70511c1455c53e00fecac622f4fc21b }.

That could be used for normalising "old style" dc references
where the dc:subject is a bnode.

The point is, we can do this now and don't need to wait on the
Library of Congress to do it. If they eventually do mint identifiers,
we can just put another owl:sameAs in.

Just my 0.02


William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 11:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:55 UTC