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

Re: Possible use case

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:31:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4C669A95.8020806@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Karen, Bernard,

This is a very interesting case I think.
Re. the availability of DDC subject as URIs, would it be worth pointing at the http://dewey.info/? It's far from complete, but the use case could be the opportunity to call for more of it :-) . Or to point potential issues there, if there are any.

Cheers,

Antoine


> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:31:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 August 2010 13:31:36 GMT