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

RE: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:41:07 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590AEC6D4F@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Cc: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Although SKOS isn't mentioned, Mark's wording implies that a
skos:ConceptScheme would qualify as a "Value Vocabulary". VIAF derives
its ontology from SKOS, so that seems to confirm the sense people had
today that VIAF falls into this category.

OTOH, foaf:focus provides a connection between SKOS and reality
(FOAF/RDA/etc.) that VIAF also uses: 


I would argue that information on this side of foaf:focus falls into the
"Dataset" category. This could explain the tension Karen noted of how to
classify VIAF.

I'm inclined to believe this foaf:focus pattern is the key to "authority
data" in general and I'm trying to weave it into the use case cluster
document. Are people willing to believe foaf:focus provides the same
type of symmetry between "value vocabulary" and "dataset" as it does
between "concept" and "reality"?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark van Assem
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:00 AM
> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Cc: Karen Coyle
> Subject: Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets
> Hi all,
> As per my action I have written some text [1] to explain the terms
> "dataset, metadata element set, value vocabulary" with feedback from
> Karen and Antoine to address the things that don't fit very nicely.
> Please let me know what you think, after I've had your input we'll put
> it on the public list to get shot at.
> Mark.
> ned#Vocabularies.2C_Element_sets.2C_Datasets
> On 28/12/2010 18:40, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > I have been organizing the vocabularies and technologies on the
> archives
> > cluster page [1] and it was a very interesting exercise trying to
> > determine what category some of the "things" fit into. This could
> turn
> > out to be a starting place for our upcoming discussion of our
> > definitions since it has real examples. The hard part seems to be
> value
> > vocabularies v. datasets, and I have a feeling that there will not
> a
> > clear line between them.
> >
> > kc
> > [1]
> >
> _and_Technologies
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:47:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC