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

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

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:34:31 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTilh35hdlV769tCw_SexOvzvf2g2qzJNykwjIW2j@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Cc: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>, List for Working Group on Open Bibliographic Data <open-bibliography@lists.okfn.org>
+1
Actually I added them to [1].

Emmanuelle

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseNotes

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
> 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 14:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 July 2010 14:35:07 GMT