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

Re: [openbiblio-dev] Curated lists and openbiblio Web UI

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:28:56 +0100
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
Message-Id: <EB2BDA96-281E-4356-8D4C-F004FCB7A099@deri.org>
To: William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>, William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>
These are definitely in scope! Thanks, William! -Jodi

PS-Very interested to talk more about use case 2 -- related to my dissertation work -- feel free to ping me offlist.

On 12 Jul 2010, at 15:19, William Waites wrote:

> Forwarding to LLD WG, this mentions two use cases that may
> or may not be out of scope for the group since they might stray
> too far from traditional library science domains.
> 
> Use case 1: how to express curated lists of works, as in bibliographies
> and reading lists.
> 
> Use case 2: how to express the state of scholarly knowledge or
> debate about works and the relationships between them.
> 
> Cheers,
> -w
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> 
> On 10-07-12 08:46, Benjamin O'Steen wrote:
> 
>> I wondered what your plans were for this area of the bibliographica
>> functionality? Curated lists, or something a little more (using some of
>> the argumentative predicates in the CiTO ontology, like 'confirms',
>> etc?)
> 
> I've been meaning to write up the way I see aggregations/lists
> being done since it was mentioned on the list last week. Briefly
> making a curated list is just making an ore:Aggregation that
> includes another ore:Aggregation per work/book/whatever.
> The reason for two levels is that the lower level contains the
> Work and its Authors since you normally want that information
> together whereas the top level is a collection effectively of Works.
> 
> Richer predicates, such as the argumentative ones from CiTO
> have been contemplated since the beginning but I think this
> might be orthogonal to curated lists?
> 
> Not sure what happens when there is scholarly disagreement
> about whether one work confirms another... Do we need to
> go down the reification road here? e.g.:
> 
>    scholar1 a foaf:Person ;
>        believes [ a Belief ;
>                         rdf:subject book1 ;
>                         rdf:predicate cito:confirms ;
>                         rdf:object book2 ] .
> 
>    scholar2 a foaf:Person ;
>        believes [ a Belief ;
>                        rdf:subject book1 ;
>                        rdf:predicate cito:refutes ;
>                        rdf:object book2 ] .
> 
> This might expose a missing predicate in cito -- scholar2
> might deny that book1 confirms book2 but not go so far as
> to say it refutes it. I guess we need to get into beliefs about
> beliefs in that case...
> 
> Cheers,
> -w
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 14:29:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 July 2010 14:29:30 GMT