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

Re: vocabs, metadata set, datasets

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:57:25 -0800
Message-ID: <20110121075725.11746cz4pg1qvv1h@kcoyle.net>
To: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:


>
> I'm not sure I follow you...  Are you saying that all of the
> information in a library record can always be expressed with
> triples with the same subject?  Even, for example, if FRBR
> distinctions are introduced?


First, the FRBR entities of Group 1 are modeled as separate records  
(unfortunately). That's something I see as problematic, but that's how  
it is. It is my impression that in each such record, all of the  
triples will have the same subject. Maybe we need to try out some  
examples and see if this is true.

If you look at FRAD, you see that the intention there (if I read it  
correctly) is that a separate name authority record carries the  
information about the named entity. The bibliographic record (one of  
the FRBR Group 1 entities) only contains the identifier for the named  
entity as an object, something like:

<http://mydata/bibrec1><has author><http://mydata/author7>

Now, in today's world, the identifier is a string like "Baker, Tom",  
but that is considered the identifier for the name.

In my mind, the DCAM represents a full data model, not a record. The  
library world also has a data model, with 3 entity types, the three  
FRBR groups (and all groups are actually multiple entities). But each  
entity is a separate record in the instance data.

Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that this is the right way  
to do it. I'm trying to explain current thinking, as I read it, in  
library cataloging.


>
> Jeff introduced the unimarc notion of "primary entity" which,
> if I correctly infer, nicely captures the notion that a record
> is focused on a particular resource without implying that all
> of the information in that record may be expressed directly
> as an attribute of the primary entity.


I don't know how primary entity is defined in terms of the record  
structure, so I can't comment on this. The idea makes sense to me as  
defined, but it would take more analysis to figure out exactly what  
the records actually express. It sounds much like what I am trying to  
explain, but I'd need examples. Note that library records often  
contain administrative data about the record or the creation of the  
record, and this isn't distinguished from data about the primary  
entity. Other than that I do believe that each record has a single  
focus today. What freaks librarians out is the idea that this  
structure will come apart in the linked data world. Diane Hillmann has  
some slides she uses to show that we can have more open data without  
losing the coherency that is so comforting to us today.

kc

>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 21 January 2011 15:58:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 January 2011 15:58:06 GMT