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

RE: is FRBR relevant?

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:56:37 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF59094F9577@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Karen,

You deserve a better answer than this. Let me try a different approach.

You've talked about the difference between "carrier and content". How
did this distinction come into your consciousness? Are you familiar with
Shannon and Weaver by chance? Note that their "mother of all models"
deals with information. I suspect this meme has created a bias in
librarians' perceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver_model
http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arunc/compmusic/weaver/weaver.pdf

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:05 PM
> To: 'Karen Coyle'; public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: RE: is FRBR relevant?
> 
> Either we are the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group or we're
not.
> Code4lib is over there somewhere.
> 
> Linked Data is a model.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:52 PM
> > To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
> >
> > Herbert, as I said to Jeff, show me how this serves users, and I
> don't
> > care what you call it. But we should be emphasizing results, not
> > principles. I use metadata to get a job done, not to satisfy a
> > philosophical view. So please put this in terms of functionality for
> > library users. How does it work in practice? That's all I really
care
> > about.
> >
> > I think that's part of what LLD should be working on: showing WHY
> > libraries should embrace linked data. They aren't going to do it
> > unless there are clear gains for the library's core services. In the
> > end, "real world" may never cross the lips of librarians nor their
> > users, yet linked data could be providing some great gains. Let's
> > focus on the latter: what are those gains? How do we bring them
> about?
> >
> > kc
> >
> >
> > Quoting Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Aug 12, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > >> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
> > >>
> > >>>> - everything on the Web is a web thing
> > >>>
> > >>> Divide and conquer. From a Linked Data perspective, everything
> > >>> imaginable is identifiable and decipherable as either a "Web
> > document"
> > >>> or a "Real World Object".
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#oldweb
> > >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#semweb
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This is a philosophical difference, and an area where I have a
lot
> > >>  of trouble with the Semantic Web as written today. In my world
> > >> view,  there are no "real world objects" with URIs.
> > >
> > > Karen, as far as I understand the work of LLD is based on the four
> > > principles expressed in <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/
> > > LinkedData.html>. Fundamental in those principles is the notion of
> > > naming things (and "things" stands for "real world objects",
> > > "concepts", etc.) with URIs. I don't think LLD should question
> those
> > > basics on which all Linked Data work is based. As a matter of
fact,
> I
> > > would not really know anymore what LLD is about if it would not
> > > embrace those fundamental principles. Obviously that does not
> prevent
> > > any individual from questioning those principles; but I think LLD
> as
> > a
> > > group/effort should not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Herbert
> > >
> > >> If it's on the web, it's on the web, and it's a web document.
What
> > >> I  think has been confused here is the document and the content
--
> > >>  content v. carrier. On the web, the carrier is always bits. The
> > >> content is (usually) about something of interest to people. What
> > >> the  SEmWeb folks call a real world object I think is what I
could
> > >> call  "content." Libraries have dealt with this since....
forever.
> > >> No one  confuses a library book about cows with a real live
> > >> ruminant. People  looking for a real live ruminant do not come to
> > >> the library. We  should use metadata methods that respond to
> actual
> > >>  behaviors.
> > >>
> > >> So basically, for me there are no real world objects in my
> metadata
> > >>   universe. It's all metadata.
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile, I must say that I'm more concerned with what my
> metadata
> > >>   conveys than the details of how the URI is constructed, since
> the
> > >>   URI is only for a machine. I will happily use any URI
> > >> construction   that best gets my users to the information they
> > >> seek. What I will   *not* do is limit my user base to folks who
> > >> understand these   semantic web concepts. In fact, I don't want
to
> > >> limit the set of   potential metadata creators to folks who
> > >> understand these concepts.   That would be rather like not
> allowing
> > >> anyone to speak a language   unless they have fully understood
> > >> Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and  Saussure.
> > >>
> > >> kc
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> - it is not the web thing-ness that is of interest to people
> using
> > the
> > >>> web, but the meaning behind the web thing
> > >>>> - therefore, it is best to skip the web-thing layer, and
instead
> > code
> > >>> for the more meaningful layer
> > >>>
> > >>> Don't skip the web layer, use it. Return 200s for "web things"
> > ("Web
> > >>> documents") and use hash URIs or return 303s for non-web things.
> > >>>
> > >>>> For example, you code an ebook as a book in electronic form,
not
> > as a
> > >>> series of bits. You code an mp3 as a song, not as a file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This follows library practice where the physical format (bound
> > paper,
> > >>> electronic file, CD) is considered secondary.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes: "books" and "songs" are "real world objects" that need to
be
> > >>> modeled. "ebooks" and "mp3s" are Web document "representations"
> of
> > "real
> > >>> world objects". This is a good start, but it shouldn't end
there.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That said, it's not entirely unambiguous, there are definitely
> > gray
> > >>>> areas.
> > >>>
> > >>> Karen! Poke them harder about the gray areas. The missing
concept
> > >>> linking "real world object" and "Web document" is
> "representation".
> > LLD
> > >>> XG needs to spend more time thinking and talking about and using
> > the
> > >>> concept of "representation".
> > >>>
> > >>>> But I would say that http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273
> > >>>> represents an intellectual construct, an entry in the LC
subject
> > >>>> authority file which has as its meaning a particular concept.
> Then
> > you
> > >>>> can use some other designation, if you wish, to represent the
> LCSH
> > >>>> record/web document. This latter is usually considered
> > administrative
> > >>>> information; it is highly useful, but not the purpose of the
> data.
> > >>>
> > >>> Shame on us for thinking we can guess our way out of this mess!
> We
> > >>> should be grateful to LC for giving us meaningful skos:Concepts
> > (think
> > >>> frbr:hasAsSubject) while begging them for skosxl:Labels. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> Jeff
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> kc
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Currently, there is no HTTP URI to identify the LC subject
> > heading
> > >>>>> "World War, 1939-1945".
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If LC used SKOS XL they could "fix" that.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is a subtle but important point related to Linked Data. I
> > >>>> encourage
> > >>>>> members of LLD XG to puzzle this out. Asking questions will
> help.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jeff
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: William Waites [mailto:william.waites@okfn.org]
> > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:24 PM
> > >>>>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> > >>>>>> Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: is FRBR relevant?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 10-08-10 03:19, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > >>>>>> > LCSH doesn't need "fixed" exactly. The only problem is that
> > too
> > >>>> many
> > >>>>>> > people believe the following URI identifies "the name of
the
> > >>>> thing"
> > >>>>>> > (i.e. the literal "World War, 1939-1945") rather than "the
> > thing"
> > >>>>>> (i.e.
> > >>>>>> > the concept of WWII):
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> > http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#concept
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> > Switching from skos:prefLabel to skosxl:prefLabel and
> coining
> > a
> > >>>> new
> > >>>>>> URI
> > >>>>>> > for the skosxl:Label would help clarify the difference
> (IMO):
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>> > http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273#heading
> > >>>>>> >
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Maybe I'm being dense but I don't understand why this is
> better
> > >>>>>> than what http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273 gives us
> now.
> > >>>>>> There are a bunch of labels, a main one and some alternates.
> You
> > >>>>>> can search on them in whatever way you like without any
> > >>>>>> ambiguity.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> #heading seems to represent "the concept of the name of the
> > >>>>>> concept". Do we really need this extra indirection?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The main problem I see is that neither what the LOC is doing
> > >>>>>> now, nor any extensions with skosxl isn't compatible with
> Dublin
> > >>>>>> Core.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>     [ dc:subject [
> > >>>>>>         dcam:member dc:LCSH;
> > >>>>>>         rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945"]]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> which appears in the wild. If i put,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>     [ dc:subject <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85148273> ]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I need to make an ugly query,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>     SELECT ?x WHERE {
> > >>>>>>         {
> > >>>>>>            ?x a Work .
> > >>>>>>            ?x dc:subject ?s.
> > >>>>>>            ?s rdf:value "World War, 1939-1945"
> > >>>>>>         } UNION {
> > >>>>>>            ?x a Work.
> > >>>>>>            ?x dc:subject ?s.
> > >>>>>>            ?s skos:label "World War, 1939-1945"
> > >>>>>>         }
> > >>>>>>     }
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As I've said before, this can be converted in an automated
way
> > >>>>>> easily enough, but I think we (or one of the follow-on WGs)
> > >>>>>> makes a concrete recommendation that may supercede DC's
> > >>>>>> usage with respect to subjects from LCSH (and possibly
> > >>>>>> other authorities). At the very least if DC encouraged using
> > >>>>>> rdfs:label instead of rdf:value we would get (with
description
> > >>>>>> logic) compatibility for free. Compatibility is obviously
> > >>>>>> not as straightforward with skosxl
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>> -w
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>> 		http://ordf.org/
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Karen Coyle
> > >>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > >>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > >>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
> > >>>> skype: kcoylenet
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Karen Coyle
> > >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> > >> skype: kcoylenet
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ==
> > > Herbert Van de Sompel
> > > Digital Library Research & Prototyping
> > > Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
> > > http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
> > > tel. +1 505 667 1267
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 01:57:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 01:57:20 GMT