- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:41:13 -0700
- 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: kcoyle.net/temp/comparePersonVocabs.pdf 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. kc >> 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