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

Re: Open Library and RDF

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:41:13 -0700
Message-ID: <20100814144113.sfw5h31txc4ok0o0@kcoyle.net>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:

> I would be absolutely delighted if the LLD group cared to help refine
> FOAF's person vocabulary to better support library, cultural heritage
> scenarios, eg. by adding a few new properties.

It might be more than a few :-). I did a comparison of foaf/dc/rda/ol  
while working on the ol rdf for author:


The underlined ones were ones where I found what could be match on a  
property I needed for OL.

Some of the RDA elements could be considered administrative data, but  
there are still quite a number that are not covered in foaf. Also, the  
two "title" properties have significantly different definitions, so  
they may not be equivalent.


>> Libraries shouldn't shy away from incomplete and imperfect conceptual
>> models. Library school should have taught us all that objective reality
>> is impossible. :-)
> Objective reality teaches us the same thing ;)
>> I can sympathize with two arguments against this POV: 1) the information
>> is being maintained natively in RDF or 2) OL developers are being stingy
>> with the URI patterns you've been allocated. I can think of solutions
>> for the former. The fact that the URIs in your RDF aren't currently
>> Linked Data suggests the latter.
> [...]
>> Let's do it both ways! Invite FOAF, VCard, SKOS, and other ontologies to
>> the party. As we've discussed, though, I encourage you to avoid
>> conflating rdf:types under a individual's URI.
> I don't quite understand that last point. One thing with these kinds
> of computer languages is that their combination is somewhat out of the
> control of their creators. If some thing is a person (in the sense
> described in prose in http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person ) then
> they just *are* a member of the class foaf:Person. Whether it is in
> some computer system / publication pragmatically useful to mention
> that fact is of course quite another matter.
> cheers,
> Dan

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 21:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:57 UTC