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

RE: Open Library and RDF

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:56:04 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909591B1D@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Cc: <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, <public-lld@w3.org>
I seem to have odd reasons, but I would like WEMI to be disjoint. The
only reason anything related to Linked Data/Semantic Web makes sense to
me is because I can visualize it (for the most part) using UML domain
models. The difference between UML "instances" and OWL "individuals" is
that all classes in UML are assumed to be disjoint. I've gotten to the
point where I can believe that an OWL individual can be an instance of
many classes, but it still needs to be the exception rather than the
rule. 

I also have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that the reason many developers
want to conflate instances in a single individual is because they have
an extreme distrust and misunderstanding of hash URIs. For example:

http://example.org/record/1/#frbr:Work
http://example.org/record/1/#frbr:Expression
http://example.org/record/1/#frbr:Manifestation

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 6:20 PM
> To: Thomas Baker
> Cc: gordon@gordondunsire.com; Young,Jeff (OR); public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Open Library and RDF
> 
> Quoting Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:
> 
> 
> > Is everyone involved in the process happy with this?
> 
> This depends on what you mean by "involved in the process"? The FR
> committees and JSC (developers of RDA) are in accord on this
> principle, but there is considerable dissent in the US library
> community, in particular from specialist communities who tend to have
> different definitions of what constitutes a W,E,M. These differences
> are simmering in the background because as yet there is no
> implementation of FRBR as a data carrier. If this "strong" view of
> WEMI is constrained in the carrier, some folks are not going to be
> able to create metadata that expresses their community view.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> > It is an
> > ontologically "strong" view of WEMI, which seems optimistic.
> > With such a conceptually sophisticated model, I'd expect it
> > to be well understood by relatively few people and therefore
> > applied imperfectly in practice.  I'm wondering whether, in
> > a linked-data environment, data consumers might need to be
> > more tolerant of logical contradictions.  I guess my instinct
> > would have been to err on the side of under-specification,
> > at least initially.
> >
> > Is there a sense that FRBR should be promoted for wide uptake
> > or that, in practice, its use will be limited to controlled
> > environments with university-trained experts?  And is there a
> > sense that the WEMI classes are so well-defined that experts
> > can be expected to distinguish between them accurately and
> > consistently?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 22:56:36 UTC

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