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

Re: Possible use case

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:11:22 -0700
Message-ID: <20100813091122.mtmmmftoyoo0k0g4@kcoyle.net>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>:

> Hi Karen
>
> +1 for this.

OK, I'll try writing it up in the template.


> It's OK although direct URIs for DDC entities would be simpler (things we
> could consider in the use case)

Yes, and that's an example of a vocabulary that does not yet have URIs  
assigned. So it shows how we can go forward even though different  
parts of the library community are at different stages of development.

>
> OTOH at http://openlibrary.org/subjects/halley's_comet I don't see any
> indication of an RDF description, but in records such as
> http://openlibrary.org/works/OL141696W.rdf the subject "Halley's comet" is
> plain text value of dc:subject.

The subject "entities" in OL are not very interesting in themselves --  
each one is just a single literal string. There isn't a structure like  
LCSH with alt labels or other information about the subject. At some  
point in the future these may become richer entities, at which point  
rdf would be more useful. Meanwhile, I could create an rdf output with  
dc:subject just so there is a representation.

kc


>
> Those examples point at central issues re. names vs URIs vs identifiers and
> definitely it seems a good use case I would gladly work on.
>
> Bernard
>
>
> 2010/8/12 Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>
>> I have a possible use case but it may be too specific. I was thinking of
>> writing up the actual effort being made to export Open Library entities in
>> RDF. There are three entities: Work, Author, and Edition. They do not
>> strictly follow library practice, which is what makes them interesting as
>> cases, IMO.
>>
>> Here are some examples. Assume that the RDF in each case is only one
>> possible solution:
>>
>> Author in UI: http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL22022A/Barbara_Cartland
>> Author RDF: http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL22022A.rdf
>>
>> Work in UI: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W/Code
>> Work in RDF: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL6037025W.rdf
>>
>> Edition (Manifestation + Expression, more or less) in UI:
>>   http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M/Code
>> Edition in RDF: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL6807502M.rdf
>>
>> Some of the issues that the case would raise are:
>>  There are many versions of FRBR - does it matter which one you use?
>>  We have frbr:Person, RDA:Person, foaf:Person, FRAD:Person.... again, how
>> to decide?
>>  There are many elements in library data that do not yet have an
>> identifier; how does one approach that?
>>
>> Or is this too specific for a use case?
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Vocabulary & Data Engineering
> Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
> Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Mondeca
> 3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
> Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
> Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
> ----------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
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 16:11:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 August 2010 16:11:56 GMT