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

Re: Wiki page on Goals

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:04:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4CFCB510.7090101@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On 12/3/10 5:59 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:
>> Ok to cover all kind of description with RELATE - but I'm not sure
>> this will feel comfortable for librarians. Librarians are only sure
>> about one thing, they describe things. If you take that away from
>> them, well... your responsibility ;-)
>> More seriously, I feel slightly uncomfortable with using RELATE for
>> litterals (which proves I am a librarian ;-).
>
> Point taken. I have backed it out of [1].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals#Make_relationships
>
>> I propose we change the description of RELATE(new) into :
>>      * new - to specify new relationships between entities (e.g. Use
>> Case Mapping Scholarly Debate) either using machine processing
>> (inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually (tagging, cataloguing)
>
> +1
>
>> Another question about RELATE(existing) :
>> relationships may exist in the data but be totally implicit. If you
>> make them explicit, is it a new relationship, or an existing one ?
>> Example (very simplified) :
>>
>> (implicit relationship)
>> http://example.com/book1 dc:creator "J.R.R. Tolkien"
>> http://example.com/book2 dc:creator "J.R.R.Tolkien"
>> http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067 foaf:name "Tolkien, J.R.R. (John Ronald
>> Reuel), 1892-1973"
>>
>> (same relationship made explicit)
>> http://example.com/book1 dc:creator http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067
>> http://example.com/book2 dc:creator http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067
>> http://viaf.org/viaf/95218067 foaf:name "Tolkien, J.R.R. (John Ronald
>> Reuel), 1892-1973"
>
> I'm wondering if the new/existing distinction is really important?
> Is there a basic difference between the two goals that we would be
> emphasizing by keeping the distinction?  How about:
>
>      RELATE - to specify relationships between entities (e.g. Use
>      Case Mapping Scholarly Debate) either using machine processing
>      (inferences, alignments, etc.) or manually (tagging, cataloguing)
>
> and then split off:
>
>      AGGREGATE - to specify clusters of related resources
>
> This would leave, under "make relationships":
>      MAP
>      RELATE
>      AGGREGATE
>


I think that this is showing quite well the issue we have with these goals--though I feel we are coming to some agreement!
As I got it, Emmanuelle's DESCRIBE is a quite abstract goal, something which can truly appear in a scenario for an end user (e.g., cataloguing/tagging of a book). I feel it is on the same level as the "user needs" dimensions at [1]. RELATE would be a lower-level description, something which can (and/or should) be done as part of DESCRIBE.
Btw. it may be important to keep the distinction between RELATE(existing) and RELATE(new), especially here. I expect DESCRIBE would be about capturing new data... But anyway, let's first wait the use case associated with it before discussing it for too long ;-)

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 10:03:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 December 2010 10:03:16 GMT