W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Brainstorming: Key Issues

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:14:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4D65326F.7060703@few.vu.nl>
To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On 2/23/11 3:14 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:
>
>
>> Note that here all I would be expecting is a brief description/examplification of the problem. A bit as you did; by RWO I meant only the Eiffel Tower itself indeed. The point is that the general linked data crowd finds it quite unnatural that "topics" should be given their own life as resources next to the RWO ones.
>
> So perhaps this becomes a statement that library metadata and semantic web metadata have some differences in their underlying concepts, and the issue is: determine if these have to be resolved in order to create LLD.


Short answer: technically, nothing has to be resolved! The SW tech stack allows one to represent surrogates of surrogates of surrogates if one wants to :-)
The problem is that this is not what many people in the LD community would *expect*. It's more a matter of education--e.g., that both communities understand the value of having persons as topics and having them "directly". And appropriate "patterns", such as the one that Jeff is advocating.

Cheers,

Antoine


>
>> So we'd need to explain:
>> - the legacy aspects (millions of "topics" are there),
>> - the benefits of the approach (especially, it would be cleaner for data management and alignment)
>> - and some hints at how to handle it with SW tech in a way that still make some sense for the common data consumer, as Jeff did in his mail (on way could be indeed to advocate that "topics" representations should be aligned with RWO representations, as much as possible).
>> It can remain quite shallow (I would not expect here a theory on the notions of "surrogate" or "proxy") as long as it demonstrates well enough the importance of the problem.
>>
>> Can such an approach fit what you have in mind for this "issues"? Or do you think such a paragraph (I think it can be as small as the above) would be too big already?
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:46:48 GMT